Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    I don't think that anyone should make the decision *for* another
    person.  Coming out is something that most gay/bisexual people wrestle
    with for years.  It takes lots of preparation, and the time has to be
    right for the person coming out as well as for the people he/she is
    coming out to.
    
    Noone else has the right to make that decision.  Just because they may
    feel that it would be for the good of others, still  gives you no right
    to disrupt the life of an individual.
    
    

    
    Hi Alan, good topic.
    When I read about this I was astounded.
    I think it stinks, really, and agree with .1
    People have no business deciding what should be revealed about
    another person. I especially loathe revealing things about
    people after they've died. 
    
    							Hank
    

	I think it stinks too. But, anyone who is, or has, been
	a public figure is subject to this sort of thing.

	There is always someone in one's past who is eager
	to disclose certain things for $$$$$$$$$.

    

	kits    

    In general, coercion sucks.  Using pressure tactics against someone who
    hasn't chosen to share their private life with the world is sleazy, and
    for lots of reasons.  It may subject them to physical threats from
    homophobes.  It can affect career options.  If a person chooses to
    devote their personal life to promoting the open acceptance of
    homosexuality by coming out, fine; I respect that personal choice; but
    to make that choice for someone else is to remove their chance to
    choose that for themselves.
    
    That position basically refers to messing with someone else's life.
    Hank, you mentioned it really frosted you when the person is dead...
    that's exactly when I could care less about the issue.  Dead is dead,
    and you can't hurt them!  What difference does it make to anyone?
    
    DougO

     When I first heard of this, I was suitably outraged. I feel it is a
    massive invasion of privacy.
    
     However, there is one case where I think the threat of outing may be
    useful: when a politician or other person in a position of power uses
    that power to oppress other homosexuals. I think THAT is more loathful
    than outing (that type of person.) If you don't want to announce your
    sexual preference to the world, that's one thing. But it is an outrage
    to pretend that you are something you are not, all the while harming
    other people for being what you are.
    
     The Doctah

    
    Hi DougO
    
    	I was thinking more of the surviving family members
    and how they might feel about having personal things revealed
    to the public. Losing someone is grief enough. 
    
    	The other thing I was thinking of is when the information
    released might not be true. Kinda hard to defend yourself
    from the grave. 
    
    							Hank

    
    re .-1
    
    Yah, I agree with you there.  There is one particulary homophobic
    Cardinal <snicker!> who has enormous political influence over the
    Catholic population who preaches incredibly damaging statements against
    the very group that he secretly belongs to.  More than one
    Massachusetts politician has been sufficiently peeved, to threaten to
    expose his private life, in order to quell the damage that he does.
    
    (Aside, his nickname is supposedly "Daisy!")

    
    re .-1
    
    It should have read RE 452.5.
    
    Sorry, Hank beat me to it!
    

    I see the Gay community's outrage over celebrated men and women who
    could become role models for other gays if they made their sexual
    orientation public.  However, since the coming out process is one of
    the first public acts of self-acceptance (as I understand it), what
    benefit is gained by forcing a person to make that step?  What you end
    up with is an angry, resentful, publicly castigated gay person who will
    want nothing to do with the Gay political/media machine which "tossed"
    him/her in the first place.  Barry Frank makes a far stronger model of
    personal courage, regardless of one's opinion on whether he should
    sleep with Jack or Jill, than Malcolm, Kristie, Richard or Greg (last
    names omitted).
    
    The Geraldo program dealt with this issue quite well on Tuesday.  He's
    actually becoming tolerable.
    
    Larry    

    In my view, "outing" is simply terrorism.  In no way do I believe
    the supposed reasoning about "role models" put forth by those
    who support the action.
    
    I would be interested in hearing some of the thoughts of the gay
    members of our community in this regard.
    
    		Steve

Thanks for your note, Mark.  You seem to have gotten the point that 
most folks either don't understand or don't agree with.  

Outing, from all the examples I've seen and rhetoric I've heard, does
not mean indiscriminately revealing someone's gayness for her/his "own
good."  Outing does not mean "creating gay role models." Outing is a
method of gay self-defense to protect us against closeted
gays--usually powerful ones--who are trying to undermine us in public.

Barney Frank is the most eloquent speaker on this subject.  He says 
that the issue is not privacy, it is hypocrisy.  (My addition to this 
is that a person's right to privacy ends where my right to self 
defense begins.)  

You want "terrorism"?  Imagine what it is like to have someone like 
Roy Cohn, sitting along side McCarthy, pointing the finger at US 
employees who were gay and causing them to lose their jobs.  
Meanwhile, Roy, old buddy, was having the time of his life in gay 
resorts in Provincetown and Key West.  Gay folks all knew that he was 
gay, that he was a hypocrite, and that he was betraying his own kind 
for a buck, for press coverage, for a seat next to a Senator, and for 
power.  However, our rule of "you can't come out for someone else" 
prevented us from defending ourselves from this vicious closet queen.

And this happens often.  There are a significant number of public 
officials who think _nothing_ of taking advantage of all that the gay 
community has to offer, while, at the same time, standing up in some 
government hall, calling us every filthy name in the book, accusing us 
of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors, and thwarting any attempts at 
gay rights bills or gay-positive education efforts.  Some of the most 
vile of these hypocrits are the ones who are high-up members of the 
nations most powerful religious organizations.  Jim Baker was just the 
tip of the iceburg.

It even happens here at Digital.  In one Notes conference, a person 
reveals her/his sexual orientation to be gay.  In another Notes 
conference, she/he argues vehemently against any pro-gay stance 
discussed.  It stinks to high heaven.

When Outing is done in self defense, against someone who is clearly 
using a powerful position to attack gay people, I heartily encourage 
and support it.  When Outing is done for some kind of righteous "You 
should be out anyway" or "We need more role models," then I oppose it.
I also approve of Outing dead people; their family's homophobia is not
more important than a truth that can help our young gay people realize
that they are not alone, that there were and are successful gay people
out there.  The woman/man is dead; their family will get over it; my 
heart doesn't bleed, not when I think of all the suffering that gay 
people go through when trying to fight this societal conspiracy to 
"not talk about it; it doesn't exist."


							--Gerry

    Gerry, your reply and feelings are quite eloquent, and I agree
    with them.
    
    One thing though: In another note in this Conference there is
    a discussion on PC'ness. In some of the examples you give, don't
    you think that these hypocrites are also exhibiting PC'ness in
    its very worst sense?
    
      Alan 

    
    Re .8
    
    > Kristie, Richard or Greg
    
    Brinkley?  (Don't tell Billy!) Thomas?  (no, please, not John Boy!)  
    Brady?  (I was supsicious about Jan, but not *Greg*!)
    

    Re. 13  Thanks for starting my day with a gentle laugh.
    
    Re. 11  Gerry, you've clarified the issue for me with your insightful
    reply.  I agree completely.  We probably can't get into names without
    being litigated to death but can you give a general sense of which or
    how many politically powerful men and woman are dealing in the hypocrisy? 

>It even happens here at Digital.  In one Notes conference, a person 
>reveals her/his sexual orientation to be gay.  In another Notes 
>conference, she/he argues vehemently against any pro-gay stance 
>discussed.  It stinks to high heaven.

 I want to take issue with this just a teensy bit. There have been issues which
you have identified in the past as having a "pro gay" position, with the
"pro gay" position being in direct opposition to certain political or religious
beliefs. While there may be cause to question someone who disagrees with
_everything_ you deem to be "pro gay," I do not believe that disagreeing
with what _you_ consider to be pro gay to be necessary or sufficient to proving
that someone is anti-gay. Nuff said.

>I also approve of Outing dead people; 

 I don't. It is not your business. It is not your life. You can swing from
chandeliers and tell the world about your sexual preference. That's your right.
It is not your right to "out" someone who is not purposefully harming you; the
"self defense" concept is simply not applicable. The dead person obviously did
not want "the world" to know. You ought to be able to respect that.

 Furthermore, you realize the psychological and sexual disfunctions that a
suppressed sexual orientation can produce. How do you think it will affect
people, with the possibility of "outing" hanging over their heads? I think
outing, except in cases of self-defense, is morally repugnant, and I have 
infinitely less respect for the "outer" than the "outee."

 The Doctah

    .11>  I also approve of outing dead people;
    
    	This doesn't show fledgling gays that certain people "made it" as
    	a gay.  It shows them that to make it you may have to stay in the
    	closet.  Outed dead gays may not have "made it" had they been outed
    	before they "made it".  It shows people that these people found the 
    	best route was to stay in the closet.  That is the "role model"
    	message from a dead outed gay.
    
    	Outing the dead serves to sensationally smear the defenseless.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    .16 -
    
    As your p-name sez:  "You go first -- after me".
    
    Beg pardon, but what is the easiest way to prove that gay people are
    important in a society in which gays are discriminated against?  If
    you're out of the closet, you can't go far.  If you're looking for role
    models so you can feel better about coming out of the closet, who can
    you find?
    
    Outing of the dead-and-famous seems like a demmed sensible transitional
    approach to me...
    
    Ray

    re .18
    
    	Kind of stretching it with my personal name, aren't you?  Actually
    	the personal name was a selfish line from my childhood days.  It
    	was used while cutting into waiting lines...  Want some ice cream?
    	You can go first -- after me.
    
    	If you really want to apply it to this discussion, the only way I
    	see it is that to have a gay role model who has succeeded despite
    	his sexual orientation, you have to have one who decided to "go
    	first" on his own.  Let *HIM* choose to come out of the closet.
    	Let HIM lead the way.  Outing a dead (previously closeted)
    	homosexual does not makee him a role model or a leader.  It makes
    	him a shield.  It does not say "You go first -- after me."  It
    	simply says "You go first."  And since he is dead, he doesn't have
    	much choice, does he?
    
    	Joe Oppelt

>>It even happens here at Digital.  In one Notes conference, a person 
>>reveals her/his sexual orientation to be gay.  In another Notes 
>>conference, she/he argues vehemently against any pro-gay stance 
>>discussed.  It stinks to high heaven.
>
> I want to take issue with this just a teensy bit. There have been issues which
>you have identified in the past as having a "pro gay" position, with the
>"pro gay" position being in direct opposition to certain political or religious
>beliefs. While there may be cause to question someone who disagrees with
>_everything_ you deem to be "pro gay," I do not believe that disagreeing
>with what _you_ consider to be pro gay to be necessary or sufficient to proving
>that someone is anti-gay. Nuff said.

I'd like to run with this a little bit more.

I think we might be in violent agreement, Mark.  I'm thinking of two 
people.  Let's call them Vocal-Noter-Conservative-Closeted-Gay-Number-1
and VNCCGN2.  ;-)  Both of these people had political opinions that 
were very far away from mine; both of these people held agendas that 
were counter to what is generally considered to be against most of the 
liberal gay tactics and much of its agenda.  However, there is a big 
difference as to how I view these two men.

Let's start with Noter1.  Although I disagreed with him politically 
and although I thought he was living a very unhealthy life, I 
respected how he carried himself in Notes.  He was consistent in his 
approach to gay rights, whether it was in the gay notes files or in 
the public notes files.  Also, although the man was closeted in nongay 
Notes files, he never implied wives, girlfriends, watching het porn, 
referred to gays as "they," or in any other way suggested that he was 
heterosexuality.  In fact, he eventually came out in a few nongay 
files.

Now, for Noter2.  Like Noter1, he had some consistency in his 
politics across the files.  However, the sharpness of his rhetoric and 
the intensity of his position shifted dramatically from file to file 
(in my opinion).  In the gay file, he was "I'm with ya folks on the 
goal, but I disagree with methods; can we talk?"  In the other 
files, not only did he refuse to align with some goals, he pretended 
to be heterosexual.  In one note, he actually said something to the 
effect of "as a heterosexual."  His tone was as relentless as it was 
attacking.  This person wasn't expressing his political views as much 
as he was aligning with the majority group du jour.  There was a 
sleaze factor with Noter2 that wasn't there with Noter1 (from my 
viewpoint).

Noter1 was politically irritating to me, but I have some respect for him 
and his privacy.  Noter2 is dispicable--what he is doing stinks to 
high heaven--and I don't have any respect for him as a Noter (and I 
struggle to refrain from outing him).

I know that the difference between Noter1 and Noter2 is slim, but, 
form some reason, Noter2 has stepped over a line with me (and many 
other gay folks I've spoken with).  I know that I am being judgemental 
in my wanting to out Noter2 and not Noter1, but, hey, I'm human.  (Not 
to mention the difference between wanting to out someone and actually 
doing it.)

The gut feeling of "being attacked" with Noter2 was soooo strong.  
Noter1 just disagreed with us; it wasn't as charged.

As for outing dead people, I guess I'll agree to disagree with y'all.  
I am gay.  I have struggled and suffered trying to cut through the 
dense forest of misinformation and censorship applied to homosexuality 
by this society.  I am very, very clear as to how my hellish teenage 
years could have been made bearable; all I needed was something to 
break down that veil of silence that gave me the self-destructive 
message that I was a doomed queer and that I was the only one.  Outing 
living people who are not attacking gay people is an unwarrented invasion of 
privacy.  Outing dead people is irritating to the dead person's 
family, but it is part of a god-send for gay people struggling with 
their sexuality: a sense that they are not necessarily doomed and that 
they are not alone.

From the perspective of a person who knows the pain of growing up gay
in this country, outing a dead person is a very small price to pay for
the benefits that it would give.  It is a way to get closer to "If
every gay person stood up for ten minutes, oppression would be
destroyed," without damaging the lives of people who are still alive. 

							--Gerry

>This person wasn't expressing his political views as much 
>as he was aligning with the majority group du jour. 

 This is far from being a sole property of conservatives. :-)

>Noter1 was politically irritating to me, but I have some respect for him 
>and his privacy.  Noter2 is dispicable--what he is doing stinks to 
>high heaven--and I don't have any respect for him as a Noter (and I 
>struggle to refrain from outing him).

 I'm just wondering what gives you the right to judge them like this. Sure,
you despise Noter2, but does that give you the right to harm him? Face it,
outing is a premeditated harm. Is what Noter2 is doing constitute a harm to you
that can be defused only by outing? 

>Outing dead people is irritating to the dead person's 
>family, but it is part of a god-send for gay people struggling with 
>their sexuality:

 You bet it's irritating. It also fails the self-defense test. You are saying it
is ok to cause other innocent people emotional harm to make your life easier.
That is extremely selfish and self-centered.

>From the perspective of a person who knows the pain of growing up gay
>in this country, outing a dead person is a very small price to pay for
>the benefits that it would give. 

 Of course it's a small price to pay- you aren't paying it!

 How would you respond to someone who said "If a few years of confusion is
all it 'costs' to be gay in America, _that's a small price to pay_." ????
Wouldn't you say "you don't understand, you don't know what I've been through
because you haven't been in my shoes." I dare say the response of surviving 
family members whose lost loved ones have been "outed" posthumously would be 
the same. Something to think about... before causing others pain.

 The Doctah

>>>..............before causing others pain.


    Mark,

    Why is the concept of being gay or lesbian supposed to cause pain???
    From my perspective, I see human beings.  

    What would cause pain, and rightly so, would be if some member of my
    family tree were a rapist, brutal murderer, sadistic torturer, etc...
    NOW THAT WOULD CAUSE PAIN if the person were "a highly-respected member 
    of society" but was really that type of person secretly and never paid 
    the price of the brutality.

    justme....jacqui
   

    I hear his *restraining himself* from any desire he might have to out
    these people, particularly Noter2.  Maybe spite would drive someone to
    out someone else, maybe the need for the world to see that some person
    is a 2-faced group-follower who seems to miraculously chameleon into
    whatever the current attitude is.  But in this case I think he's
    stating that even if he wanted to, he probably wouldn't.
    
    -Jody
    

>    Why is the concept of being gay or lesbian supposed to cause pain???

 My memory must be slipping- I don't recall ever making a statement that
being gay or lesbian was supposed to cause pain. Could you reference a note 
please?

 The Doctah

****************************************************************************
 How would you respond to someone who said "If a few years of confusion is
all it 'costs' to be gay in America, _that's a small price to pay_." ????
Wouldn't you say "you don't understand, you don't know what I've been through
because you haven't been in my shoes." I dare say the response of surviving 
family members whose lost loved ones have been "outed" posthumously would be 
the same. Something to think about... before causing others pain.
*****************************************************************************


    Mark,

    I see the above as you implying that being gay causes pain.

    justme....jacqui

There is something very bizarre about this conversation and my 
attempts at communicating here.  But I haven't figured it out.  I'll 
need to think about it a while.

I have two thoughts that are clear, though.  The first is that I did 
not out Noter2 (I was talking about feelings, not actions), and 
changes are very good that I will not ever out anyone.  (<- Boy, that 
sentence looks bizarre!)  

Second, the notes (and discussions and TV shows and...) of 
most heterosexual people have always been very telling to me, even before 
this discussion here.  No matter what the particular topic being 
discussed the arguments of most heterosexual people fiercely defend 
the status quo; any attempts at altering the current social system of 
this country are fiercely shot down by heterosexual debaters.  There 
is always some "logical flaw" in the argument of the person advocating 
change.

Please note that the systematic brutality against gay people really
doesn't make a big splash in the headlines or in heterosexual's daily
discussions.  However, when Outing is brought up, these very same
heterosexuals seem so easily to align with the pain felt by the
closeted gay person and the pain felt by family members of dead gay
people. 

Where is your concern when living gay people are beaten on the 
streets?  Where is your concern when gay youth fall into self 
destructive behavior because all they have ever been taught by their 
oh-so-wise heterosexual peers/role-models is that gay is queer and 
that gay people are sad at best and doomed at worst?  Those topics 
don't get quite the same splah on Oprah as Outing, do they.

I don't see the objections in quite the same vehemence.  When someone 
gets beaten or when gay youth struggles, I hear, "Well, err, that's 
really too bad, but we have laws for that kind of thing."  When Outing 
gets discussed, suddenly heterosexuals can empathize with gay people: 
"How _dare_ you cause pain to another human being!  Who are _you_ to 
judge them!?!"  Interesting.  You might want to take a close look at 
what turns on your empathy button and what leaves you luke-warm, and most 
importantly, why?

There is an awful lot of pain out there, folks.  And I'm not saying 
that Outing is some kind of magical potion that will make everything 
better for gay people.  However, it is a proactive way of undermining 
the part of the system that uses secrecy against us, a method that has 
caused awsome personal pain and damage to gay people (especially 
youth).  It is heartily discouraging to see so much blatant, "No, you 
can't do that" sentiments without any kind of stated empathy for the 
problem that Outing is trying to address and without much empathy for 
the pain that is systematically inflicted on millions of gay people 
daily because of this "let's not talk about it; it doesn't exist" 
conspiracy.

I am gay, but I am also human.  I have a family.  I have attended 
wakes.  I understand family secrets and not-so-secret secrets (my dad 
is an alcoholic).  I think that I can empathize with a family, 
mourning a family member, feeling ashamed, angry, and hurt that the 
sexual orientation (or, let's say, status as an alcholic) were 
revealed after death.  I also understand that gay issues are very 
important to me, and that I see things strongly from that perspective. 
All told, I still don't think that the pain of the family is 
comperable to the pain of a youth trying to form some semblance of 
self-esteem in a world that hates him/her and teaches him/her to hate 
him/herself.  The pain of the family--intense as it may be--is very 
temporary, and has nothing to do with the responsibility of the individual 
family members.  The pain of the youth undermines self-esteem and 
affects what the youth can and can't be for the rest of his or her 
life.  Momentary, intense pain versus a life udermined (actually 
millions of lives undermined).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And, as I'm typing this, I have another thought: I'm not sure that gay
people should care about what heterosexuals think about Outing.  This
is family business, and you are interfering.  As long as we are not
breaking any laws, maybe you shouldn't be invading gay-community
privacy by laying claim to this issue in any way.  If you are
heterosexual, it shouldn't concern you. 

Feel free to discuss it as a philosophical exercise, but I think that
the energy, vehemence, and passion I see in this discussion is yet
another attempt of heterosexual folks to tell gay people who we are
and how we should behave *among*ourselves*!  We don't need that from
you, thank you very much.   You, as a group, have done enough damage; 
let us determine if we are helping ourselves or damaging ourselves; we 
are big enough boys and girls to tell if we need to shift course away 
from Outing.

							--Gerry

.0> Is 'outing' a good idea?

.0> Should only gays be allowed to 'out' someone without their motives being
.0> impugned?

.28> And, as I'm typing this, I have another thought: I'm not sure that gay
.28> people should care about what heterosexuals think about Outing.  This
.28> is family business, and you are interfering.  As long as we are not
.28> breaking any laws, maybe you shouldn't be invading gay-community
.28> privacy by laying claim to this issue in any way.  If you are
.28> heterosexual, it shouldn't concern you. 

Well, I suspect that I know where Ger stands on straight people doing
Outings. 

.28> let us determine if we are helping ourselves or damaging ourselves; we 
.28> are big enough boys and girls to tell if we need to shift course away 
.28> from Outing.

Can I then assume that you think it's okay for gays to Out each other?

  Alan

    
    	Ger, I don't think it's so much a matter of non-gays trying
    	to impose our morals on gays as it is defending another
    	persons right to privacy. You aruge that gays have the right
    	to "out" others they know to be gay after their death. Well,
    	how would you like it if aomeone knew something about you
    	you didn't want anyone to know while you were alive. Don't
    	you feel that each person has a right to privacy? Or is it
    	only something you reserve for yourself and other gays that
    	have come out? What if I knew you had been having a good time
    	with the goat next door for years. Does this mean after you
    	die I'm allowed to drag this out in public and make your family
    	and friends bear the burden of it? I still have to maintain
    	that ANYONE has the right of privacy, and no one else has the
    	right to decide for them what they'll allow that person to
    	bring out or not. Just because the system is against gays doesn't
    	mean that gays all of a sudden have rights to do with other gays
    	lives anything they wish. Or does being gay give license for
    	other gays to abuse your civil rights?
    
    	G_B

re .28
    
>I'm not sure that gay
>people should care about what heterosexuals think about Outing.  This
>is family business, and you are interfering.  As long as we are not
>breaking any laws, maybe you shouldn't be invading gay-community
>privacy 

    	Now here I see so many contradictions!  On one hand the gay
    	community wants to be mainstreamed and accepted, but at the
    	same time you place gays in their own social ghetto with talk
    	of "family" business and outside interference.  It sounds like
    	you want it both ways.  (I don't want that to be taken sexually.)
    
    	Then you talk about gay-communuty PRIVACY in an entry that you
    	are defending your position on the acceptability of the INVASION
    	OF THE PRIVACY of a dead previously-closeted gay.
    
.28>There is something very bizarre about this conversation and my 
.28>attempts at communicating here.  
    
    	These are your own words.  Perhaps I am the only one seeing your
    	communication as confusing.
    
    	I want to make something clear.  I don't really hold a position on
    	the issue of outing in general.  But what I am taking issue with
    	is the outing of a dead person.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

>    I see the above as you implying that being gay causes pain.

 It often does. But that does not mean that I feel it is SUPPOSED to. See the
difference?

 The Doctah

    Mark,

    Thanks for clarifying your position.  It helps to keep things
    clearer.

    justme....jacqui

    but he's NOT like us.  Gay people have, in most cases, gone through a
    great deal of torment, soul-searching, fear, and ostracism - more than
    many of us will ever know.
    
    And if having some figurehead of society, or one oustanding human being
    revealed posthumously as ALSO being gay, could that save some fear,
    some torment, some tremendous weight on the soul of other gays who may
    be unable to even acknowledge what they are to themselves because they
    feel so alone, and so far outside the norm, and so certain that nobody
    normal, nobody who could ever achieve anything, has ever been gay -
    would that be worth anything?  To help them find their identity?
    
    Why would the family feel such a tremendous need to deny the dead 
    person's way of being?  Isn't it a symptom of many people's discomfort
    around gays (which they SURELY perceive to the very roots of their
    soul) that they cannot even acknowledge that reality even after the
    person is dead?  Can you imagine LIVING that embarassment - feeling in
    your soul that embarassment, because that is how you feel you are 
    - something that most people find so uncomfortable they can't even
    acknowledge it in those they love?
    
    Only after Karen Carpenter died was it acknowledged that she was an
    anorexic - and that was what killed her, eventually (actually, it was
    constant purging with ipecac that built up a toxic chemical level in
    her bloodstream that finally gave her the heart attack, not the weight
    loss itself).  What if she had come forth as the first high-visibility
    victim of anorexia and sought treatment openly - would that maybe have
    given thousands of anorexic people some hope that they were not
    the only ones, and that they were not hopeless, and that they could
    still be normal human beings with treatment as Karen was?  And didn't
    her "outing" after she died cause other celebrities, like Cherry Boone
    (daughter of Pat) to tell their stories, and create hundreds of pages
    of literature, and cause psychologists to investigate the causes and
    treatments for anorexia - after realizing that it wasn't just their one
    patient, it was something many people suffered from?
    
    -Jody

    Gerry, thanks for tackling yet another difficult subject, and eloquently
    too.  I may paraphrase you to make my points, hope I get it right.
    
    Seems as though people are missing the point here.  The main
    purpose of "outing" is to fight hypocrisy, not invade people's
    privacy.   If a closeted gay undermines gay rights, or openly
    attacks gays, while trying to remain in the closet, that person
    is open to "outing."  His/her right to privacy is forfeit because
    of hypocrisy.  

    No one, straight or gay, has the right to "out" anyone "for his/her
    own good."  Coming out is an individual process, and every gay person
    (except the above-described hypocrites) has the right to come out
    in his/her own time, or not at all.  Even celebrities have that right,
    though we gays (and a lot of straights too, it seems) like to play
    the "Guess who's gay?" game, since we find positive role models
    among famous (even if closeted) gays.  Better role models are people 
    like Barney Frank (whatever you think of his judgement/taste in men) 
    and Dave Kopay.  Unfortunately, I can't think of more examples,
    since it's still rare to find openly gay people in
    sports/politics/entertainment.

    >Note 452.31                
    >Then you talk about gay-communuty PRIVACY in an entry that you
    >are defending your position on the acceptability of the INVASION
    >OF THE PRIVACY of a dead previously-closeted gay.
    
    I happen to think "invasion of privacy of the dead" is a major
    contradiction in terms.  Granted, it's not the nicest aspect of
    human nature, and discussion of the secret lives of JFK and
    Marilyn Monroe isn't nice, and probably hurt their survivors,
    but that sort of thing is never going to stop, is it?  
    I'm not encouraging it, but I'm trying to point out a double
    standard here.  Discussing the sex lives of famous dead straights
    doesn't seem to elicit much outrage, so why should it be so
    for dead gays?  Simply because they were gay and didn't come out
    isn't a good enough reason for that kind of outrage.  If
    people say "Hey, so they were gay, what's the big deal?"
    then that marks a step in the right direction, in terms of
    changing society.
    
    I don't quite see that people like Malcolm Forbes or Rock Hudson are 
    particularly good role models simply because they were gay; they 
    remained publicly closeted until after they were dead (I don't think 
    Rock ever admitted to being gay, just to having AIDS).  But I do 
    agree with Gerry's point that keeping the "guilty secret" of gayness 
    after a person has died, to protect the family, only reinforces the idea 
    that being gay is something to be ashamed of.  Whatever reasons a 
    person has to remain in the closet dies with him/her.  The family 
    bears no responsibility for "shame," so why should it matter?  
    If anything, the family should be sorry that the person didn't come 
    out while alive, and perhaps be a role model, and effect a 
    positive change on society.  I don't expect to change anyone's 
    opinion on this, but I wanted to voice support here for Gerry's views.  
    Outing dead people really isn't the issue here, is it?  It didn't 
    seem the intent of the base note, and it seems to be turning 
    this discussion into a rat-hole.

    >Note 452.29                
    >Can I then assume that you think it's okay for gays to Out each other?
  
    Re-read Gerry--it's ok when the person being "out-ed" is a hypocrite and
    actively working against gays and gay rights.
  
    As for this issue belonging solely to gays, well it's here, so
    why not discuss it? I do think Gerry's point about outrage by
    straights at "outing" is well-taken. Kind of makes you think, doesn't
    it?  Where *is* the outrage among most straights over gay-bashing,
    job and housing discrimination of gays, unequal treatment of gays under 
    the law (lack of spousal benefits, inability to marry legally)?  We
    need support from the straight community for *live* gay people,
    not concern over the reputation of dead ones.
 
    (I know there is a lot of support here for gay issues from straight
    people, so those of you who are supportive, please don't be
    too offended by my tirade, it's not aimed at you. There's a minority
    of straights working for gay rights, which is why we tend not
    to expect much from straights, and in the process, the supportive
    ones are sometimes alienated, like Mark in .34. Thanks.)
		
    Richard

> Is Outing really a concern of yours?  I think not.

 Basically, you are saying that only gay people have a right to privacy concern.
That's rather self-centered IMO.

>There is always some "logical flaw" in the argument of the person advocating 
>change.

 I don't suppose there is really a "logical flaw." It's just a sham perpetrated
by those nasty "strates" to keep gays oppressed. Can you say chicken little?

>Where is your concern when living gay people are beaten on the 
>streets? 

 I am not concerned about gay people being beaten in the streets any more than 
I am concerned about anyone else being beaten in the streets. They are people
first. They do not deserve any more (or less!) empathy than anyone else.

>"Well, err, that's 
Z>really too bad, but we have laws for that kind of thing." 

 Well, Ger, what do you want us to do?

>And, as I'm typing this, I have another thought: I'm not sure that gay
>people should care about what heterosexuals think about Outing.

 Really. Why should you live your lives in a way that heterosexuals can find
respectable if not acceptable? Why do anything to quell the angst that hets
feel towards gays? Why give hets any reason to believe they are "like us"?

>As long as we are not
>breaking any laws, maybe you shouldn't be invading gay-community
>privacy by laying claim to this issue in any way. 

 Aha- so privacy is a gay issue?

 Frankly, Ger, whenever you launch into one of these "us against them" tirades,
it reinforces the notion that you are "not like us." By erecting this wall
around yourself, you separate yourself from us while at the same time
DEMANDING that you be accepted. It's not going to work.


 The Doctah

re: Jody

>    but he's NOT like us.

 It gets really confusing to hear that in one breath gays are "just like us" and
in the next they aren't. It seems to be that gays are "just like us" when it is
beneficial to the argument, and "different" when _that_ is beneficial. :-(

>    And if having some figurehead of society, or one oustanding human being
>    revealed posthumously as ALSO being gay, could that save some fear,...
>    would that be worth anything?

 Yes, but who decides whether what is gained is worth what is lost by the
families involved? It seems to me that the families ought to have final say,
because they are the ones that will have to deal with the adverse effects of
a posthumous outing. It is unreasonable to expect to say "well, it's better to
make these other people feel pain because we don't want to" and have it not
be challenged. Prove to me that the benefits of allowing the gay community
to accuse prominent people of being gay (or expose them for being gay) outweigh
the negative aspects of that outing vis a vis family privacy and the risk
of false accusations and I'll agree.

re: Richard

>The main
>    purpose of "outing" is to fight hypocrisy, not invade people's
>    privacy.

 Then how is this accomplished by outing dead gays? Are you saying that every 
gay that is not out is a hypocrite?

>Better role models are people 
>    like Barney Frank (whatever you think of his judgement/taste in men) 

 I think this undermines what you are trying to say. :-)

>Discussing the sex lives of famous dead straights
>    doesn't seem to elicit much outrage, so why should it be so
>    for dead gays? 

 It all depends on what the sex lives were. Extramarital affairs are pretty
much no big deal, but bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia are all likely
to elicit a similarly "outraged" response due to their inability to be
related to by the majority of people.

>The family 
>    bears no responsibility for "shame," so why should it matter?  

 When someone's kid is endlessly hassled by other schoolchildren because his
daddy or his uncle was gay, then it DOES matter. And like it or not, that
stuff continues, and therefore deserves consideration. I hear plenty about
the pain that gay people go through because they are gay, what about the people
who are not gay but are treated as such?

> We
>    need support from the straight community for *live* gay people,
>    not concern over the reputation of dead ones.

 Hint: reckless outing will not accomplish this.

 The Doctah

Doctah Mark (.37),
    
> Then how is this accomplished by outing dead gays? Are you saying that every 
>gay that is not out is a hypocrite?

    Well for one thing "outing" dead gays reinforces that gays are human. ;-)  
    I just don't think it's a big issue, certainly not as important
    as "outing" closeted homosexuals who actively work against gays.
    
    I can't speak for all gays, but sometimes I feel like a hypocrite,
    because I can pass for a straight white male, and can benefit as such.
    Coming out in this conference is a big deal, believe it or not.
    
> I think this undermines what you are trying to say. :-)

    I figured someone would pick up on that. I'll repeat, whatever
    I think of Barney Frank's politics or personal life, I respect
    him for his courage in coming out.
    
>much no big deal, but bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia are all likely
>to elicit a similarly "outraged" response due to their inability to be
>related to by the majority of people.

    Most of us are pretty sick and tired of having homosexuality
    lumped together with the above.  If people can't relate to
    homosexuality, it's because of misconceptions like the above,
    and fear of uneducated people who still think it's the same as the above.
    
> When someone's kid is endlessly hassled by other schoolchildren because his
>daddy or his uncle was gay, then it DOES matter. And like it or not, that
>stuff continues, and therefore deserves consideration. I hear plenty about
>the pain that gay people go through because they are gay, what about the people
>who are not gay but are treated as such?

    yes, people are cruel, and it's easy to feel superior to
    gays, and to use it to taunt.  My point is that if kids
    learn to say "So what if my relative/friend is/was gay?"
    then we're on the way to a better society. It's too bad
    that these kids are the victims.  There are a lot of
    gay teens and adults who are victims of verbal and physical abuse, and
    I have to have more sympathy for them than for relatives of
    dead gays.  
    
    As for people who aren't gay but treated as such, I'm not
    sure I see your point. It's unfair, and they suffer.
    What does it have to do with "outing?"
    
> Hint: reckless outing will not accomplish this.

    "Reckless" is a subjective term. Do you object to "outing"
    closeted gays who work actively against gay rights?  "Outing" 
    these hypocrites is one attempt to fight back.
    
    Richard

    
    A few meandering thoughts on statements that disconcert me:
    
    
    re; Gays are/aren't "just like us"?
    
    Who is "us", anyway?
    
    The "rest" of the community?  We heterosexuals?  Hurm....
    
    I am also confused (logically--intuitively I sorta understand WHY
    Ger said that) by the "we are also human, we should be treated like
    one" talk coupled with "this is OUR family/community/etc." talk.
    
    Doc is right.  You/we/us can't have it both ways.  We can't logically
    demand our own rights and deprive others of theirs (with few
    exceptions, naturally.)  
    
    Homosexuals and heterosexual are just like each other to the extent
    any human being can be just like another (save, perhaps clones).
    If one were to disect the Doctah and disect Gerry, they would most
    likely be pretty much the same--two dead (hopefully), disected human
    males with basic structure and chemical make up closely akin to
    each other allowing for genetic differences.  Like two dead, disected
    cats, or rats, or bears, or worms.  What differentiates the two
    is their thoughts, motivations, wants, desires, and yes, sexual
    orientation.  Even if they looked exactly alike, they'd still not
    be the same.  But both ARE human.  Both ARE a member of society.
    Society IS "us".
    
    They IS Us.  We is Us. 
    
    Then why the inequality in treatment?  Many reasons, all prejudicial,
    certain some more hurtful than others.  But equality is not achieved
    by division (our family vs. their family).  You do not compete for
    teamwork, you either are part of the team or you aren't.  There
    are indeed laws against beating up a fellow human beings.  As gays
    are human, as black are human, as women are human, as brunettes
    are human, there is a law somewhere that says, "You may not be beaten
    up for no reason other than a small, restricted few."
    
    To make that law apply to all of US, we do not need laws for each
    of us, only one big law that says this is not to be done.  And that
    law must be MADE TO STICK.  There must be consistent, equal punishment
    for breaking that law.  But it won't happen overnite.  Some people
    still think it's "okay" to beat up gays because that "You may not
    beat up people" law doesn't "apply to them".  Not true and these
    people must be shown that.  There is not magic wand to make everyone
    overcome their prejudices.  But dividing into "families" is not
    the answer--for support, yes, but not unity.  
    
    They IS Us.  (worth saying again).  All of us.
    
    To tie this into the topic a bit:
    
    Yes, recognition that gays are as much a piece of society as say,Kim's
    are is important to share.  However, violating privacy is not the
    answer.  It's tricky to draw the line here, but disclosing private
    facts about others personal lives is not the answer, not matter
    how hypocritical they may be (I am wavering a little on politicians
    here...they are so much in the public eye it seems impractical to
    demand certain privacy matters where it opposes their stated view).
    
    "Outing" dead people is wrong, morally.  I see it only as
    sensationalizing, money-making, and alientating.  If I am gay, it
    is my OWN business to tell others or keep it to myself (I really
    try not to run down the street yelling, "I'm heterosexual!!!" either
    ;)  <--note smiley    If someone need speculate, they can ask me,
    observe my actions, or whatever.  What is actually revealed should
    be of my own choosing.
    
    "Outing" live people is much worse (again, the wavering on politicians)
    in that lives can be ruined while the person still has to live it.
                          
    As I said before, there is no cut and dried line to draw here. It's
    tricky to say the least.  
    
    My thoughts,
    
    kim

    RE: .39 Of course some people are pretty sick and tired of having
    homosexuality seperated from bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia.
    
    ~Cliff

    re .41, really?  Why?
    
    Lorna
    

re: Richard

>    I just don't think it's a big issue,

 If it's not a big issue, then you shouldn't have much objection to refraining
from outing dead people (who, are generally inept at defending themselves
from any accusations...) Good. That you respect the privacy of people alone
will make up for the fact that you won't be getting those role models.

>I respect him for his courage in coming out.

 Actually, it was a political decision, not a personal one. Local papers had
gotten wind of his homosexual activities (which had been suspected for some 
time) and it threatened to become a campaign issue. He defused the situation
by coming out. It was a smart decision, but I think it was a "do or die" and
so took less courage than if he had come out without the pressure.

>    Most of us are pretty sick and tired of having homosexuality
>    lumped together with the above. 

 There's a difference between "lumping together" and "comparing." I did the 
latter so that you would understand. Instead, the red flag waved and you
missed the meaning. I hate when that happens.

>    As for people who aren't gay but treated as such, I'm not
>    sure I see your point. It's unfair, and they suffer.
>    What does it have to do with "outing?"

 You out a prominent person. His children are harrassed, beaten, taunted and
emotionally scarred. They are not gay. They are paying the price for their
father's sexual activities. That's where it comes in.

>Do you object to "outing"
>    closeted gays who work actively against gay rights? 

 I refuse to restate this basic tenet. If you are really interested, go back 
and read the beginning of this string.

 Arrrgh! People that argue with someone and don't know what their opponent's
positions are really annoy me!

 The Doctah

    inre .41
    
    why on earth would anyone link homosexuality with the other three
    
    Bonnie

    Seems to me that good gay role models would be "out" already. Seems to
    me that a closeted person wouldn't be a good role model because he was
    either embarrassed or afraid to come out. 
    
    Seems to me as though the families of dead gays should have more say in
    what Ger described as "family business" than a stranger.
    
    Seems to me that Barney Frank is no kind of a role model as far as his
    being gay. He answered ads for male prostitutes. That "sleazy" impres-
    sion of gays is what hinders their acceptance the most in hetero society
   
    I don't believe in outing people, dead or alive even if their political
    opinions are conservative. Many women do not advocate feminism. Some 
    gays may not believe in the Gay Rights Bill. Their choice.
    
    Also, what if an outed dead person was not really gay? I mean it is a
    hard thing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
    
    Kate
    

>    why on earth would anyone link homosexuality with the other three

 What do the other three have in common? They are considered to be "abnormal,"
"deviant" if you will. They cannot be related to by most hets. Some would
probably add bondage and discipline, S&M, "water games" etc to the list. Some
feel that sodomy and oral sex belong, too. It's a matter of perspective. 

 The Doctah

    Dh. Mark,
    
    I re-read your reply .5 and find we're in agreement on this one
    aspect.
    
    It's a difficult issue even for gays. Thanks to those who are
    trying to understand.  Anyone who feels alienated, welcome
    to the club.
    
    Richard
    

In today's (10 May) Boston Globe, Mike Barnicle has a column entitled 
"The Nonsense of 'Outing'". 

For those who do not live in New England, Mike Barnicle writes a 
daily column for the Globe and is a fairly regular commentator of 
events on "Chronicle", a nightly locally-produced TV news magazine. I 
would describe his personality as iconoclastic. (Some would have other
descriptors for him, I'm sure.)

Basically, as the title of his column might imply, Barnicle thinks that
Outing is a foolish concept. He touches upon issues of a person's right to
privacy, the hypocrisy of those themselves doing the Outing, and, inter-
estingly enough, the issue of sexism.  

His column is too long for me to attempt to enter the whole thing here, 
but if anybody else is a decent typist, and wants to enter it, please do.

Some of his more salient points, in my opinion, follow.

****************************************************************************

"The [gay] militants badly want to expose sexual preferences. So they
might picket a fellow's house or print his name in one or another homo-
sexual newspaper."

......................

"But some homosexuals worry about exposing people this way. What about the
right to privacy? What if a guy isn't homosexual? What if he just crosses
his legs funny or happens to enjoy wrestling with men downstairs in the den?

"And isn't Outing a contradiction in terms? Homosexuals argue - and rightly
so - that sexual preference shouldn't be at issue when it comes to employment,
housing or anything else."

.......................

"And if you argue that a private act shouldn't play any part in public set-
tings like the job or housing market, how do you explain Outing some guy?
It doesn't make much sense."

.......................

"After all, the average person is too busy, too deep in debt, too burdened
with personal problems to pay much attention to any public list of who is
homosexual. Yet the militants seem to think (a) everyone else must be homosex-
ual and (b) absolutely everyone is obsessed with finding out who is homosexual.

"Sorry, but it just ain't true.

"Yet Outing does beg a couple of questions. Why have Outing teams com-
pletely ignored lesbians? Are militant homosexuals deranged sexists? Surely
there must be a few important women hiding in the closet. Why pick on guys
all the time?"

"And what about the role model aspect Outing proponents mention? Say a man
has a well-paying job, is connected, rich, powerful, famous, has a family,
wife and kids, but ends up two nights a week at a roadside rest area holding
hands with a sailor. He is homosexual and wants to keep that news to himself.
That ought to be his choice and his business, right?

"But no. Against his wish, he is dragged out of the closet by a collection
of militant, malcontent, busybody homosexuals who mistakenly think homophobia
will lessen if this poor terrified guy is exposed and acknowledges his homo-
sexuality publicly.

"However, unless his wife is a real airhead, there will probably be a messy
divorce. His kids may or may not tell him to hit the road, too, but there will
certainly be some difficulty. His job might go down the drain. All of a sudden,
his position in the community is diminished. Maybe the guy gets so bummed out
he jumps off the top of the Hancock Building.

"Then what? Some role model, huh?"

*******************************************************************************

  Alan

    Sounds like Barnicle agrees with almost everybody here that outing 
    is invasive of privacy and uncalled for, in most cases.
    
    Did he address the self-defense aspect, as in, outing someone who 
    is using their position to attack gays?  If not, his analysis is
    incomplete.
    
    DougO

    
    
  RE: Note 452.49 by SKYLRK::OLSON
    
>>    Did he address the self-defense aspect, as in, outing someone who 
>>    is using their position to attack gays?  If not, his analysis is
>>    incomplete.
    
    
    	So what?  Even if someone is attacking gays while they themself
    	are gay, does that give you the right to invade his privacy?
    	The right to privacy doesn't say "only if all these conditions 
    	are first met". If I steal from you and a month or so later
    	you come and steal from me and get caught in the process, try
    	using the defense "but your honor, he stold from me first and
    	I was just paying him back". You'll be told that what he did
    	is not relevant to YOUR case. Same thing here as I see it, everyone
    	has a right to privacy, period. Just because I may or may not be
    	a part of one group or another doesn't give anyone the right
    	to take away my right to privacy.
    
    	RE: the outing of dead people. They made their wish known while
    	they were alive (ie not coming out) and as such should be
    	respected. The gays that are using this tactic is saying they
    	are trying to show other gays they are role models out there.
    	Okay, fine, but why don't they be role models themselfs by showing
    	others a little respect for their rights and wishes.
    
    	G_B
    

    Re: .49
    
    Doug, the nearest that Barnicle comes in addressing your question
    seems to be:
    
    *******************************************************************
    
       "The militants badly want to expose sexual preferences. So
       they might picket a fellow's house or print his name in one
       or another homosexual newspaper if they suspect he is a hy-
       pocrite about sex. In other words, they bring him 'out.'
       That's where the word 'outing' comes from."
    
    ********************************************************************
    
    BTW, I've received a few requests from people for permission to
    extract the Barnicle quotes for use in other Conferences, so long
    as my name is removed from attribution (which only seems fair, since
    they're Barnicle's, anyway. :-) ) Permission is hereby granted to any
    and all.
    
      Alan   

    re: .50
    
    I think your analogy with stealing ("it's okay because he stole
    from me") isn't quite accurate.  There are legal defenses against
    stealing; if you steal from me, I can get legal redress.  There
    is also no element of hypocracy about it.  
    Gays have no legal recourse against gay politicians who indulge
    in gay-bashing for their own selfish ends.  I think there is a
    difference.
    I'm not sure I would "out" anyone if I were gay...I don't have the
    experience to know what it's like.  I expect I would be sorely
    tempted in some cases though.

    re .50, George-
    
    >   So what?  Even if someone is attacking gays while they themself
    >	are gay, does that give you the right to invade his privacy?
    
    Um, well, not me, because I couldn't truly say I need to defend myself
    when someone is attacking gay people.  But in principle, yes indeed; if
    some closeted gay polititian is making life harder for gay people, I
    see that they have the right to defend themselves by showing that
    politian's hypocrisy.  They aren't attacking the pol because the pol is
    gay, they're attacking the hypocrisy of a public figure.  Its fair in
    any other context, why not this one?  Public figures don't have as
    strong a right to privacy, when you get right down to it.
    
    DougO

    
    Thanks DougO (.54), that's exactly the point of "outing."
    
    I was able to read the full text of Barnicle's editorial. He
    did indeed ignore the concept of "outing" closeted homosexual
    politicians who lobby against gay rights.  Maybe he didn't
    understand, after all, he's been reading about "outing" in
    the straight press, since he mentions "USA Today" and
    of course, the "Globe."  Although he decries "militant
    homosexuals" for publishing the names of famous, though
    closeted, homosexuals in gay newspapers, apparently he
    doesn't care when straight rags like the "National Enquirer"
    and "The Star" (and "USA Today") publish those stories to
    a much wider, and I presume predominantly straight, audience. 
    Then Barnicle has the nerve to say that "militant homosexuals
    seem to think absolutely everyone is obsessed with finding out who
    is homosexual."  I think that's a bit unfair.  Straights are
    just as "obsessed" with finding out who's gay.  Any perusal
    of the covers of the above named rags will prove that.
 
    Tonight on LA Law, the "outing" issue is tackled. From
    the description in TV guide, it sounds like a gay cop is "outed"
    by a gay journalist, in at attempt to make the cop a positive
    role model. I agree with those who think this kind of "outing"
    is wrong, and will backfire on gays or straights who do it.
    
    Richard

    One question
    
    
    heterosexual historians or homophobic historians if you wish
    have long eliminated personal references to their homosexuality
    by authors and other famous people long dead.
    
    Is it okay to publish such information about historical people?
    
    Bj

    re:-1
    
    To answer your question,if the people were not admittedly homosexual, 
    no. It is not ok to accuse them of homosexuality. What if they were 
    falsely accused? 
    
    I know you don't think of homosexuality as bad, Bonnie, neither do I.
    But some people do. What is one of the most red-necked SOAPBOXERS was
    falsely brought out? That could be like accusing a woman of having an
    abortion. Some women don't believe in abortion. 
    
    Kate

> But in principle, yes indeed; if
>    some closeted gay polititian is making life harder for gay people, I
>    see that they have the right to defend themselves by showing that
>    politian's hypocrisy. 

 Here's where it gets tough. You say "making life harder" for gay people. This
could easily be (and is by some people) construed to mean "you must agree with
my politics or I will have license to out you." After all, you are a closeted,
conservative gay politician. I want the XXX bill to pass, which I feel would
be advantageous to gays. You think it is a flawed bill and announce your 
intentions to vote against it. You are making things harder on me. Therefore
I can legitmately say "hey, everybody, conservative republican Ralph Lawrence
is a homosexual!!!!" 

 I personally feel that political disagreement is insufficient grounds to
"out" someone. Just because a politician votes against X gay rights bill or
whatever, that does not make them anti-homosexual. And that's an important
distinction to make (especially how one hears how casually the term "anti-gay"
is applied.)

 The Doctah

	Outing is an invasion of privacy.  My love life (or sex life) is no
    one else's business.  No one else's love life (or sex life) is any of
    mine.  "The family will get over it" is a little too cold-hearted for
    me.  I'm against it.

	                                              Gary

    	Anybody see "LA Law" last night?  We could have written one of
    	the story lines for that episode right from this topic.
    
    	In the end, the jury ruled in favor of the gay reporter who
    	outed a closeted gay cop who became a hero for some deed.  (The
    	cop had filed a suit against the reporter for invasion of 
    	privacy.)
    
    	The thing that struck me was that the outing was done to show
    	"the people" that a gay can be a hero.  However, once the cop
    	was outed, he lost his family and job.  At the time of the trial
    	he was a failure,  a broken man.   It left me with the impression
    	that all this outing did was hurt.  It had no positive benefit.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    re. hypocritical politicians.
    
    A good point was brought up to me after I had watched LA LAW and
    commented on how I disagreed with outing, then said in the case
    of politician's who were apparantly being "hypocritical", I wasn't
    sure.
    
    The reply was that a politician isn't supposed to always respresent
    his or her own beliefs, but that of the majority of his constituents
    (sp?).  Unfortunately, this may present a case of hypocrisy in some
    matters.  
    
    It sounded plausible  and made me rethink what I had said.
    
    ---kim

>    We
>    need support from the straight community for *live* gay people,
>    not concern over the reputation of dead ones.
 
Oh, baby!

Good noting, Richard.  Hugs to you.


				--Ger

> Yes, but who decides whether what is gained is worth what is lost by the
>families involved? 

Your definition of "family" is very narrow and not completely 
accurate.  His gay family has rights, too.

Do you know what it feels like to be a lover of someone for decades, 
and, after the death of the partner, to find yourself listed in the 
obit after the parents, the siblings, the uncles, the aunts, and the 
family dog (and even then listed as a "friend")?  Do we treat 
heterosexual wives and husbands like this, expecting them and their 
needs to fade into the background once the partner has died?

The gay families have the right to mourn publicly; some people call 
"public mourning" of gay families "outing."  Call it what you will.

Let's make a deal: I won't tell heterosexual family members how to 
mourn they're dead, and they won't impose their homophobia on our 
family mourning. 

(There is a massive assumption that many folks are making: that outing 
a dead person will automatically "hurt" the heterosexual family.  
That's not always true.)


							--Gerry

>Your definition of "family" is very narrow and not completely 
>accurate.  His gay family has rights, too.

 And of course we all know whose rights take precedence, don't we?

>The gay families have the right to mourn publicly; some people call 
>"public mourning" of gay families "outing."

 Aha! So in order for a homosexual to mourn, s/he must do so in public and then
in such a manner that completely ignores any rights to privacy that their
lover's family might have. I didn't realize that.

>Let's make a deal:

 Can't do that. The deal has to be made between the people involved. You don't
have the right to make such a deal unless you're in it; neither do I. And I
do not consider posthumous outbursts to be a "deal."

 Did you happen to catch LA Law last thursday night? A cop who was involved
in a hostage situation and who reacted by performing beyond the call of duty
was treated to a bit of limelight by the local media. An enterprising gay
"journalist" decided that made him a public figure and so "outed" him even
though he KNEW that it would be extremely hurtful to the cop. In fact, the cop
lost his partner, and was essentially devastated personally and professionally
by the incident. And the journalist continued to insist it was his right to
out this cop because he was "a public figure." In essence, the journalist
sacrificed the individual rights of the cop for "the good of the gay community."
He removed the choice of the cop to come out on his own, a right which he
proudly had exercised himself. And he was pleased with himself. He was 
incidently exhonerated by the jury. Your reactions?

 And by the way, if you are so concerned with "support from the straight
community for live gay people," why on earth would you insist on doing something
that is practically guaranteed to have the reverse effect?

 The Doctah

>    My love life (or sex life) is no
>    one else's business.  No one else's love life (or sex life) is any of
>    mine.  

Wedding invitations, pictures of kids, and wedding invitations are the
same level of exposing "love life (or sex life)" as saying someone is
gay.  (One of the biggest shams around is that heterosexuals do not
"flaunt" their sexual orientation; in fact, they expose me to it
daily.)  These signs of heterosexuality are considered to be warm
societal ritual.  Coming out is considered an invasion of privacy. 
There's something wrong with this picture. 

Me telling you that I am gay tells you almost _nothing_ about my love 
life.  


							--Gerry

>>Your definition of "family" is very narrow and not completely 
>>accurate.  His gay family has rights, too.
>
> And of course we all know whose rights take precedence, don't we?

I'll give them equal precedence.  Your writings have opposed equal 
precedence.

>>The gay families have the right to mourn publicly; some people call 
>>"public mourning" of gay families "outing."
>
> Aha! So in order for a homosexual to mourn, s/he must do so in public and then
>in such a manner that completely ignores any rights to privacy that their
>lover's family might have. I didn't realize that.

You sure do read what you want to read, Mark.

Gays should have the option of mourning publicly.  

>>Let's make a deal:
>
> Can't do that. The deal has to be made between the people involved. You don't
>have the right to make such a deal unless you're in it; neither do I. And I
>do not consider posthumous outbursts to be a "deal."

Okay, then I'll do what I want and let the chips fall where they may.  
No laws are being broken.

> Did you happen to catch LA Law last thursday night? 

I haven't seen it, but I have discussed it with numerous people.  I 
find LA Law's treatment of most gay issues to be "good liberal" on the 
surface and homophobic underneath the surface.  This episode is no 
exception.  This is yet another example of heterosexuals ignoring 
reality and playing up conjecture to reframe outing for their own 
political purposes.  In all the cases that I have read about (and 
there have been very, very few), no one has ever outed someone living 
to "provide a role model."  However, heterosexuals seem fascinated by 
that angle.  They also seem adament in assuming that someone will 
"lose everything" and "suffer great pain" and "give great pain to the 
family" in cases of outings.  I'm sure that this will be the case 
sometimes, but not always.

> And by the way, if you are so concerned with "support from the straight
>community for live gay people," why on earth would you insist on doing something
>that is practically guaranteed to have the reverse effect?

Because a lot of us don't want your support based on homophobic, 
restrictive conditions placed on us by you.  We want you to support 
us, not what you imagine or want us to be.


							--Gerry

I'm sorry that I have been away from this discussion for a bit; I had 
a few deadlines that I had to take care of.  I'm especially sorry 
since, at the end of my last lengthy reply, I was just beginning to 
get in touch with the reasons why the tone of this discussion here and 
in the heterosexual media was bothering me so much.  (Sometimes when I 
note, I have a gut feeling, and my mind is rambling around to figure 
out what has just happened.)

First, I'd like to share a quote that I heard recently: wisdom is the
ability to fully embrace life's paradox.  There are things in life
that seem contradictory, but that exist--sometimes side by side--in
our lives.  For instance, "gay men are just like heterosexual men."
Yes, I can understand the truth in that statement.  As another
example, "gay men are different  from heterosexual men."  Yes, I can
see the truth in that statement, too.  Although they seem to
contradict each other, both statements are true and coexist within all
of our experiences. 

The problem with a lot of discussions (especially when they take on a 
debating tone), is that people entrench themselves in one part of the 
paradox and throw stones at the other side.  It might be wiser to 
embrace the yin and yang of it all.

Second, I think that heterosexuals have, once again, overstepped their 
bounds in this discussion (here and in the media), and I think that 
gay people should be very strong about setting limits on heterosexual 
participation in this discussion.  This is family business, and you 
don't belong here.  Can you discuss it for learning sake?  Sure!  Can 
you offer feedback to the gay community as to what you think would be 
good or bad?  Absolutely!  Can you determine what is best for a 
community that you are not a part of?  Nope.  If the African-American 
community wants to establish some method of publicly slapping Black 
elected officials for anti-Black stances, I would not feel free to act 
as judge and jury, or to determine what is "best" for them; but you 
people, here in this note, have no qualms about attempting it for gay 
people.  Interesting....

Third, the arguments against gay people mourning members of our 
community in an open way are filled with assumptions, homophobia, and 
fierce heterosexism.  A husband or wife of a deceased person who 
states his or her relationship in the obituary and at the funeral is 
just part of the status quo.  A gay lover who attempts to do the same 
thing (that is assuming that the heterosexual family hasn't bullied 
its way into controlling all of the mourning process, and hasn't 
kicked the lover into the background as a "friend" or "roommate"), is 
committing high treason, extreme invasion of privacy, and very bad 
taste.

Someone said that privacy without the freedom to reveal is a jail 
cell.  Gay people should have the option of revealing their sexuality 
and the sexuality of people they are mourning.  To strip that option 
away or to make that option a contingency on the wishes of homophobic 
heterosexual people is pure and simple second-class citizenship.

I know that we are militant, gross, tacky, and unacceptable people, 
but, yes, Virginia, we are "just saying no" to second class 
citizenship.  You mourn your way, and I'll mourn mine.  We'll all 
live through any pain.

As for the central issue of outing, I wish that heterosexuals would 
get back to the central, realistic component: a closet queen's right 
to a private life ends when he uses that private life as a base from 
which to attack me.  One of the reasons why the person in the LA Law 
case didn't win his privacy law suit is because it is very hard to 
prove malice in privacy cases.  The _intention_ of gay leaders who 
have threatened to out hypocritical politicians is not to hurt them; 
it is to frame their homophobia in a more complete context, it is to 
prevent them from hurting other gay people from behind a cloak of 
protection that the victims are helping to hold up.  If other 
homophobic heterosexuals decide not to re-elect him, decide to kick 
him out of the family, or decide to do other things to him, those 
other heterosexuals are guilty of crimes (that is _if_ there is a gay 
rights bill to protect him), not the gay people who did the outing.  
The only way the gay people doing the outing would be guilty would be 
if they knew for sure ahead of time that harm would come to the person 
being outed.  Good luck proving that.

What has really made an impression on me in this discussion is how 
fearful heterosexuals are of change to the current system.  It is very 
telling that the only gay issues that arise any kind of passion 
and heated debate are ACT OUT and outing.  Any time that gay people 
act in a powerful way to change their lives or to facilitate our own 
community growth, heterosexuals find some kind of logical flaw or 
conjectured injustice (there are very few cases of serious abuse of 
relatives of gay people; it is GAY PEOPLE who are being beaten and 
killed; can we stay in reality, folks???).

I think you all have a serious case of the Emeror's New Clothes.

As far as I can see, you're all naked.



						--Gerry

    Here's an analogy, though I know some people will take issue
    with it:
    
    A lot of African-Americans suffered because militant civil rights
    activists "forced" them into the fight for equality. I'm sure
    a lot of them would have been satisfied to live under
    the status quo of "Whites only" life.  Does that mean that
    civil rights activism should be decried as a force for social change,
    because people who didn't want to change the status quo were forced
    to?
    
    "Outing" would not even be an issue if gays were not discriminated
    against, persecuted or made to feel ashamed/embarrassed/perverted.
    
    Yes, social change is painful, and it will be many years before "outing"
    is no longer used by both gays and straights as a threat
    to the individual.  How do you balance what's good for the
    individual against the good of all (this is a rhetorical question
    I don't expect straights to be able to answer for gays, since
    some gays can't answer it for themselves yet)?
    
    Richard
    
    P.S. Thanks Gerry.

>>The only way the gay people doing the outing would be guilty would be 
>>if they knew for sure ahead of time that harm would come to the person 
>>being outed.  Good luck proving that.
    
    So, even if it did hurt someone it's okay because "nobody can prove
    you knew ahead of time it would cause harm"?  Does the same hold true
    if someone told you a secret and you spead it around causing harm?
    Hey, you can't prove I knew it would harm you. 

>>What has really made an impression on me in this discussion is how 
>>fearful heterosexuals are of change to the current system.  It is very 
>>telling that the only gay issues that arise any kind of passion 
>>and heated debate are ACT OUT and outing.  Any time that gay people 
>>act in a powerful way to change their lives or to facilitate our own 
>>community growth, heterosexuals find some kind of logical flaw or 
>>conjectured injustice (there are very few cases of serious abuse of 
>>relatives of gay people; it is GAY PEOPLE who are being beaten and 
>>killed; can we stay in reality, folks???).
    
    Whoa, you are not acting in a powerful way to change YOUR life,
    you are acting to change ANOTHER persons life without their
    consent. You know, I doubt you'll find very many people here
    that care if you come out or not, it's your choice. One thing
    you keep failing to see with your blinders on is that YOU are
    taking that other persons choice in the matter in YOUR hands and
    not leaving it where it belongs in THEIRS. Whatever their reason
    to choose not come out is ONLY their business and not the whole
    gay communities business. Just cause I'm het does not give the
    rest of the het community the right to invade my privacy and make
    my choices for me about what I let be known about me public.
    
    G_B

    I'm sorry you feel so....(how to put it without being labelled one
    of those naked heterosexuals who just want gay people to be in the
    closet/second class forever types???)--polarized from what the doctah
    and others (including myself) were stating.
    
    Naturally, outing and all it's involved strings, hit close to home.
    However, I find that you are reacting on the same line as women
    who declare that men have nothing to say about women's issues, rights,
    etc and certanly nothing to say of true importance, concern, of
    validity because of the fact that men are not women and only women
    are women.  (you may reference some of my notes in womannotes to
    see my stance on that.)
    
    I will readily acknowledge any and all prejudices against gays in
    this country.  I will happily side with you when you point at instances
    of beatings, killings, discrimination, et al against gay men and
    women.  I will sadly verify that yes, this culture holds a great
    deal of misconceptions towards the gay community and unfriendly
    stereotypes to boot.  But I cannot condone the nature of "outing"
    to help CHANGE that sad state of affairs.  While outing may help
    vindicate those being oppressed, it does nothing to help those outed,
    nor the "cause" as a whole.  It presents those doing the outing
    in a malicious, vindictive, mean, petty, jealous light.  
    
    Sure, Ger, you're in the minority here (or so I would guess).  You're
    part of a group who is treated meanly by many people (but please,
    it's not all of US vs. all of YOU).  Disagreeing with you on the
    issue of outing and what harm it would due over what good you think
    it does isn't condoning discriminatory behavior, nor pronouning
    judgement on all gays, not enforcing you to any kind of behavior
    that "we" think is best.  ANd I will re-interate.  There is not
    "family business" here.  We are all part of the same damned
    species--when you start making your own camps, that's when the bloody
    trouble starts in the first place.  If gays wish to be accepted
    as a part of the human community (aka not treated as second class
    because of what gender your preferred bed partner is), then they
    need to get themselves assimilated into the community, not erect
    walls and decide heterosexuals have nothing to do with them.  In
    parallel example, if I as a woman wish to be accepted into humanity
    as a part of it (aka not treated as second class because of what
    gender I *am*), then I, nor any other women who wishes for that,
    cannot form our own camp, build a wall and decide men have nothing
    to do with us.  
    
    It doesn't work that way.  When it does work, it's slow.  It's not
    gonna happen overnite, and it has to happen gradually.  People don't
    just wake up and say "Oh!  My prejudices all this time have been
    WRONG!!  Women should be treated equally!  Gays are not the scum
    of the earth!  Blacks are not lesser beings!"  
    
    It takes a damned long time.  Radical actions, while they will gain
    you all the attention in the world, usually do little more than
    put up a nice, new, shiny and strong barrier between what the goal
    of that radical action eventually was, and the goal itself.  I think
    outing, while on the surface an understandable idea, is not a good
    idea, nor one to be advocated in any form.  It's tricky, it's not
    PC for the gay crowd to hear (I guess, based on your reaction),
    and it's not really black and white.  But it's certainly not advocating
    for gays to "stay in their places", either.  
    
    Perhaps we were saying the method was wrong, not the overall finish
    line.  
    
    ---kim

    The last reply by myself was intended for Ger's last reply, which
    was around .70 or so.  Someone else snuck in.  ;)
    
    ---kim

.69> Second, I think that heterosexuals have, once again, overstepped their 
.69> bounds in this discussion (here and in the media), and I think that 
.69> gay people should be very strong about setting limits on heterosexual 
.69> participation in this discussion.  This is family business, and you 
.69> don't belong here.  

    	How can you seriously consider that such a statement would go
    	unchallenged?  This is not the GAY_ONLY notesfile.  ANYONE can
    	participate in this discussion!  (Please don't try to twist
    	what you meant.  It is clearly stated in you quote above that
    	you refer to this conference specifically.)

    	So I don't belong here, huh?  I'm sure the moderators of mennotes
    	would be thrilled to know that you want only gays participating 
    	in this topic...

    	Let me take it one step further.  You refer to the media (and I
    	hope you will allow me to extrapolate that to the non-gay
    	population in general) as being out of place in this discussion.
    	What happened to freedom of press?  Who is going to keep them
    	out of this discussion?  Who is going to edit what they write?
    	What other topics should also be so limited and controlled?  

    	Do you realize that you are suggesting?

    	You (the gay community) want to be considered as one with the
    	rest of the population.  Not discriminated against.  Not singled
    	out.  Not different.  Just one of the guys...  And then you
    	insist on creating these walls around you.  "Please don't pigeon-
    	hole us," you say.  And then you turn around and contribute to
    	the focus on differences just as surely as any gay basher does.

    	I just don't understand it...

Re: .74

Um, er... Gerry IS a moderator of MENNOTES.  Please try not to apply his
comments regarding "family" to particular notes conferences.

I'm finding this whole discussion very enlightening, even though I don't
agree with Ger's position on this issue.  Gives me something to think
about.

					Steve

    re .75
    
    > Gerry IS a moderator of MENNOTES.
    
    	All the more reason for me to attack his statement in .69.  He
    	should know better.
    
    > Please try not to apply his comments regarding "family" to
    > particular notes conferences.
    
    	Please tell me what I did wrong.  Did Gerry not do the same thing?
    	Is there a double standard here?
    
    
    	Joe Oppelt

Re: .76

I think you misinterpret his use of "belong here".  I take his meaning as
"it is not your place to pass judgement on what gays do in terms of 'outing'".
I don't take it as meaning "your comments don't belong in this conference."
I also don't view it as an attempt at censorship at all, but more of a
"it's none of your business".  You may choose to disagree with his
position if you wish, but please try to do so in a non-confrontational manner.

				Steve

	re .77, 78
    
.77> I think you misinterpret his use of "belong here".  
.77> I don't take it as meaning "your comments don't belong in this conference."
    
    	I take issue with more than just the phrase "belong here."  Please
    	consider the following:
    
.69> Second, I think that heterosexuals have, once again, overstepped their 
.69> bounds in this discussion (here and in the media) ... This is family 
.69> business, and you don't belong here.  
    
    	The "here" in the phrase "here and in the media" can mean nothing
    	else but here in MENNOTES.
    
    
    	I would also like to address the following:
    
.77> I also don't view it as an attempt at censorship at all
    
.78>    I think maybe some people read to much into his "family business"
.78>    statement.  I certainly didn't read it as a call for censorship
.78>    of straight people!
    
    
    	Please explain to me then, what this is supposed to mean:
    
.69> gay people should be very strong about setting limits on heterosexual 
.69> participation in this discussion.  

    
    	.78 says "I think Gerry's point is quite clear.  Straight people
    	can participate all they want..."
    
    	Maybe I'm just not reading the same thing, but it looks to me
    	like Gerry's entry uses the words "setting limits on heterosexual
    	participation", which is in direct contrast to what .78 sees as
    	"quite clear."
    
    	No, I don't believe that I've put any words into anybody's mouth.
    	And unless Gerry is being deliberately cryptic, I don't believe that
    	I am reading too much into what he is saying.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    
    Ger, and others...
    
    My sincerest apologies for having entered any notes in this topic.
    I thought that for us to come to a greater understanding of each
    other, to help to break down the barriers of misunderstanding,
    that exchanging thoughts and opinions was a positive step in
    the right direction. I never knew I didn't belong here.
    
    Now I do know. And it is most enlightening.
    
    							Hank

    Look, I am not being any more confrontational than anyone else over
    such a sensititve issue.  Anything I say, that isn't agreed with
    100%, will most likely be interpreted as some kind of gentle or
    non-gentle slam against gays, Ger, or whoever.  
    
    It's not meant that way.  I can only clarify up to a point and then
    it becomes wasteful.  I am comfortable in my chosen words, and if
    they are taken to mean that I am still "overstepping my bounds", that's
    really unfortunate.  I wasn't the one who caused all the hate,
    stereotyping, and gay bashing.  I am not going to personally take
    the blame for "the rest of us", whoever "us" might be.  I do my
    best to overcome my personal prejudices and stereotypes, and yes,
    I do feel that some of the tactics taken by the gay community to
    be accepted are wrong.  I never said that gays should "be more like
    us" (again, sadly, with the us and them thing), however I did say
    that building up walls to counter walls does NOTHING but make for
    a hell of a lot more walls.  Presenting one's group in a vindictive,
    hurtful light does zero to counter negative mindset's about that
    group.  Sure, my protests isn't going to stop anything who insists
    that outing is the right thing to do, but it certainly doesn't impress
    upon me that that person, as a representative of a group, is really
    showing their group in a positive light.  
                                                                   
    
    So yes, I've thought about what I said.  The topic asked for thoughts
    on outing, I gave them, and I also wished to say that I'm sorry
    Ger thinks that we're overstepping our bounds, here, in the media,
    or just in life in general (whatever he meant).  I'm sorry that
    he feels "we" want to keep gays in their place.  I'm sorry that
    there's such a controversy over the whole damned thing in the first
    place.  It's really a shame.  
    
    It's also a shame that the majority of each side seems content with
    alienating the other, and believes that some amicable solution is
    supposed to come out of it.
    
    ---kim   

re: .69

>Second, I think that heterosexuals have, once again, overstepped their 
>bounds in this discussion (here and in the media), and I think that 
>gay people should be very strong about setting limits on heterosexual 
>participation in this discussion.

 I personally find the "outing" of anyone who is not actively harming gays to be
despicable and disgusting behavior. And I couldn't care less whether you think
I am entitled to my opinion or not- that's completely irrelevant. My opinion
may not be law, but is real and I have every right to hold it and speak it.
Don't you DARE to try to take that away from me; you'd hit the ceiling if I 
tried to do the same to you. 

 I think you have become too selfish in your methods. Too much thinking of me, 
and too little of the personal prices OTHERS must pay. And I don't care if
you don't like my opinion.

 The Doctah

    	Everybody seems to be quoting the same text over and over (but
    	without adding the very next sentences,) so here goes:
    
    	> Can you [heterosexuals] discuss it for learning sake?  Sure!  Can 
	> you offer feedback to the gay community as to what you think would be 
	> good or bad?  Absolutely!  Can you determine what is best for a 
	> community that you are not a part of?  Nope. 
    
    	This comes immediately after the sentence about heteros "not belonging
    	here."
    
    	He goes on to say:
    
    	> If the African-American community wants to establish some method 
    	> of publicly slapping Black elected officials for anti-Black stances, 
    	> I would not feel free to act as judge and jury, or to determine what 
    	> is "best" for them; but you people, here in this note, have no qualms
    	> about attempting it for gay people.  Interesting....
    
    	Do folks here really think they are in a good position to know
    	what's best for the gay community (more than the gay community
    	knows itself?)
    
    	This is all Ger was arguing against (if you read his whole note,
    	rather than the lines taken out of context.)

A few thoughts...

I think that it is fine that people in MENNOTES are talking about 
outing (though it would be _very_ interesting to bring the topic 
around as to what this says about men).  

Also, I have not seen any instances in this Note that I considered to 
be cruel to me or to gay people; you all are doing A+ work in that 
department (in my opinion).  I have seen nothing but attempted 
compassion for people and their private lives, and I have seen an 
attempt to get at "doing the right thing."

I feel as if I've been pretty clear at to my stance, so I'll let other 
folks talk for a bit.  The only other point that I wanted to 
address is this idea of me being so selfish that I am only thinking of 
"the good of the gay community" and not the individual's right to 
privacy.  Well, there is a conflict of interest, here, and I don't 
have any kind of sure-fire solution that will work in every context.  
(I have always been advocating outing in certain contexts, not as 
something that should be used often or indiscriminately.)  There are 
powerful closeted people--almost always men, by the way--who use their 
power to defeat pro-gay legislation, to use public forums to call us 
names, and to undermine hard work done by gay people.  

Herein lies the conflict: which is more important, the privacy of the 
closeted politician who is attacking gay people or the right of a gay 
person to defend her/his hard work and livelihood?  What I am hearing 
from most of you is "privacy at all costs."  What I am saying is "both 
are important, and I'm not going to place one above the other."

(I also maintain that someone's use of gay-community resources is not 
"private" information; it implies a social contract.)

Herein lies the conflict: which is more important, the wishes of the 
heterosexual family during mourning or the wishes of the gay family 
during mourning?  I am hearing in this file, "the heterosexual family 
must be guarded from pain."  I am saying that both families have 
rights; I will not place the wishes of one over the other.

It isn't "clean."  I don't see a way out of this without "pain."  I 
think that the wise thing to do is to embrace this paradox, this 
conflict, and to try to find a solution that can get us all through 
this with as little pain spread out among us as possible.  It makes a 
lot more sense to me than picking some philosophical angle and 
force-fitting it into one position or the other.

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot!  All this talk about "if you want to be 
accepted/assimilated, then you'd better not do this."  Well, I think 
that Digital's Valuing Differences program addresses this very well.  
Support, acceptance, and "assimilation" isn't the same as "ignoring 
our differences."  In other words, I shouldn't have to force-fit 
myself into a different person to make heterosexual people 
comfortable, just so that gay people can be accepted.  The goal is not 
to homogenize us, but to live side-by-side in peace.  We don't ask 
African-American people to become white to be accepted (though there 
is a good argument that a lot of us do just that; "act more like us, 
and everything will be alright!").  We don't ask women to become men 
to be accepted (or, in some cases, do we?).  I'm not quite sure that 
"assimilation" the way you folks have been describing it is the goal 
of a lot of gay people; the way I'm hearing you folks describing it, 
it sounds  like "gay people changing their lives, catering to the 
fears and discomforts of heterosexual people."

In my experience with Valuing Differences, I have found this
interesting thing to be true: if you concentrate on similarities, the
differences almost always get ignored; if you concentrate on
differences, the similarities take on an even clearer focus.  (I think
that human beings notice similarities quite naturally; it doesn't take
that much effort.)  If we are going to be living together, 
side-by-side, in peace, I need to feel as if my differences and the 
differences of my sub-community are being acknowledged and valued.  It 
is devaluing to me to have folks want to homogenize away my 
differences in some attempt to get me assimilated.

Maybe we can meet halfway.  Maybe we gay people can agree to live to
some larger norms of society in general (assimilation), and maybe
heterosexual people can work a little bit on their discomfort, helping
them to live side-by-side with gay people in their entirety
(differences included), not side-by-side with people living a charade
to please the majority. 


						--Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

PS
      
>    	Everybody seems to be quoting the same text over and over (but
>    	without adding the very next sentences,) so here goes:
>	
>    	> [Sentences about "you don't belong here."]
>    	> Can you [heterosexuals] discuss it for learning sake?  Sure!  Can 
>	> you offer feedback to the gay community as to what you think would be 
>	> good or bad?  Absolutely!  Can you determine what is best for a 
>	> community that you are not a part of?  Nope. 

ThankYouThankYouThankYouThankYou Suzanne!  I was wondering what 
happened to the rest of that paragraph.  

As I have said many times before, if Digital will pay me for Noting, I
will write second and third drafts to avoid misunderstandings; until
then, I think I should be cut some slack and taken for my entire
entry, not one line cut out of a paragraph.   

Joe, did you purposely misrepresent what I said on purpose?  Or did 
the first two sentences get you so angry that you didn't absorb the 
next few?  I feel as if you are attacking me personally by selective 
quotations.

    re .82,84

.82>    I understood 'here' and 'family business' to be refering to the
.82>    discussion of outing NOT the entire conference.

.82>    please reflect on whether you have misunderstand the meaning and scope.

    *****

.84>    In particular I understood 'here' and 'family business' as used in .69 
.84>    to be refering to the discussion of outing (that is to say topic # 452)
.84>    NOT the entire conference.
    
.84>    Dear .74,.76,.79
.84>    please reflect on whether you have misunderstand the meaning and scope
.84>    of the points raised in .69
    
    
    	Without a doubt, the remarks in .69 WERE directed solely at the 
    	discussion in topic 452.  We do not disagree on that.  But topic
    	452 is a part of MENNOTES.  It cannot be moderated differently from
    	the rest of the conference.  It cannot exclude participants who are
    	otherwise free to exchange in any other topic in this conference.
    	If participation in this discussion in this conference (ie topic
    	452 and any other splinter topic) is to be limited, then the whole
    	conference must be limited.  

    	In effect, when you open a notes conference, you step into an
    	electronic conference room.  Some rooms are members-only.  This 
    	one is not.  In this conference room we are supposed to discuss
    	issues related to men.  Yes, perhaps some (a majority?) of the
    	people who have walked into this room are not a part of the
    	"family" directly affected by the topic at hand.  But are we not
    	entitled to discuss it nonetheless?  So if not here, then where?
    	Aren't we entitled to discuss African-American sanctions against
    	black politicians who are viewed an anti-black, even if we are not
    	black ourselves?  (Take note, .86, CSC32::CONLON, and .88, 
    	TLE::FISHER.)  How can we not discuss an issue without giving 
    	opinions?  Without sharing feelings?  This conference is no 
    	different than a barber shop or a public restaurant.  There is 
    	no sign on the front door limiting the participants in any way.  
    	What .69 asked is for half of the people to leave the room so that 
    	only certain members can participate in this discussion.
    
    	I still stand behind what I wrote in .74, .76 and .79.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

> There are 
>powerful closeted people--almost always men, by the way--who use their 
>power to defeat pro-gay legislation, to use public forums to call us 
>names, and to undermine hard work done by gay people.  

 I have yet to notice contention on this specific issue. The contention lies
mostly with the outing of A) dead people and B) people who do not put other
gays in a defensive position.

>What I am saying is "both 
>are important, and I'm not going to place one above the other."

 We have two (according to you) completely opposite rights: the right to
privacy and the right to grieve. Why exactly the need to grieve must be
a public spectacle for gay people, I have not yet understood. But that is what 
is being proffered. 

>In other words, I shouldn't have to force-fit 
>myself into a different person to make heterosexual people 
>comfortable, just so that gay people can be accepted.

 Idealism vs. reality. Hate to resurrect this, but it's there. You don't HAVE
to act in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of people; then again, we
don't HAVE to accept your unacceptable behavior, whether lawful or unlawful.
If someone does something that is technically legal, but morally repugnant,
I don't have to accept him. I have to behave lawfully towards him. It doesn't
mean I am not allowed to deride him behind my back. It doesn't mean I have to 
be nice to him. It doesn't mean anything. If your value system allows you
to do things that I do not value, I am under no obligation to do anything other 
than ignore you. I may not be able to do anything against you, but I don't
have to do anything for you. Nor should I.

>We don't ask 
>African-American people to become white to be accepted 

 Nope, but we don't allow blacks to kill other blacks either even if that
is ok by their value system. What you seem to forget is that gays are people
first, gays second. When issues deal with people as people, gays have no right
whatever to exclude any group, however inconvenient they may be to the 
conversation.

 The Doctah

    re: all

    	The entire basis for my disagreement is the following:

.69> gay people should be very strong about setting limits on heterosexual 
.69> participation in this discussion.  
    
    	Sure, the tone of that message has been arguably tempered by
    	talk of "family business" and "discuss[ing] it for learning
    	sake," but first impressions are lasting.

    	There is more to this topic than just some mythical "family."
    	Perhaps gays do share a special brothership, I don't know, but
    	to discount the effects of outing on anyone outside of this 
    	circle is nothing short of selfish.  And to decide for 
    	heterosexuals that they have no input of value (not just in
    	regard to the discussion, but in determining the value and effect 
    	of this practice) is hardly different from deciding for the gay 
    	to be outed that these actions are more important than their 
    	effects on his life.

    	The same attitudes supporting outing also seem to support the
    	idea that heterosexuals cannot add value to this discussion.


.90>    I share the opinion expressed earlier that for some reason you seem to
.90>    find it necessary to exaggerate and distort what Gerry has said.
.90>    
.90>    It might behove you to reflect on why you are so angry.
    
   
    	In deciding for me that I am angry, aren't you also exaggerating
    	and distorting what I have said?  Changing the focus from a
    	gay's concrete position (which he has not refuted) to my alleged
    	anger is the true distortion here.

    	Joe Oppelt

    Thanks Suzanne and Herb, for showing that Gerry was not
    totally misunderstood.  I second his contention that people
    here are, for the most part, attempting to maintain a
    reasonable dialog on a difficult subject.  I also agree
    with Gerry that the decision as to whether it's right
    for gays to "out" other gays rests with the gay community.
    But as they say, everyone has an opinion...
    
    People here might be interested to know that the discussion
    in the gay_issues conference is no less heated.  Many gay
    people feel that "outing" is wrong under any circumstance
    (except perhaps for long dead self-proclaimed gays that
    history has not told us about).
    
    I asked this question in the gay issues conference: How many
    people can claim they have never told someone that another
    person is gay?  I could ask the same question here.  I suspect
    some people would say it's beyond their interest, but I also
    suspect that many, if not most, people have engaged in conjecture
    or repeated gossip about some famous person who's rumored or
    admitted to being gay.  Doing it doesn't make it right, but
    my point is that most of us could come down off the high moral
    ground on this issue, and deal with the reality of it.
    
    I've certainly been in the position of knowing someone is gay, and 
    wanting to let other gays know, mostly because of the "comfort in numbers"
    reason, not out of any malicious intent.  If I've ever told
    another gay person that someone else is gay, it's because I've
    trusted that person to be discreet about it.  I respect a person's level 
    of outness, and expect others to do the same.  I suppose there's
    some contradiction here, and I'm open to criticism for it.
    
    To be honest, I think it happens all the time, one gay person
    telling another a third is gay.  Knowing it happens doesn't make it 
    right.  Maybe it's not good, and we should be thinking about it. 
    But the other side of the coin (this is a gay perspective) is
    that the more people we know are gay, the greater our collective
    strength. This is where it gets sticky, the rights of one balanced
    against the benefits to many.  Here the benefit is strength in numbers.
    
    As for the right to privacy, certainly I want it, and I want
    others to have it.  But when closeted homosexuals reinforce
    all the negative things I had to overcome to consider myself
    healthy and worthy, then I begin to think that's an infringement
    on *my* rights.  I don't expect heterosexuals to understand
    that, but I'm saying it anyway.
    
    This makes me think of the distinction (I make, anyway) between
    "homosexual" and "gay."  People can be homosexual (engage in behavior)
    but not gay (attitudinal, lifestyle).  I don't mean to sound superior,
    but I feel sorry for gay folk who worry that other *gays* find out
    about them.  It's not gay-positive, and it reinforces all the negative
    things that in coming out I tried to overcome.   I know I'm on the
    verge of value judgement here, something I loathe.  But it almost makes
    me angry, because I feel that when gays can't be out to other gays,
    even indirectly, it does reinforce the things that keep us
    *all* closeted.

    The thing is, as long as we treat our gayness as a "secret" even if
    we don't see ourselves as closeted, we open ourselves up to gossip,
    even among other gays.  Sadly, it's human nature to want to tell
    secrets, and if someone is already a member of the club, people see
    that as license to reveal secrets (I'm theorizing here).
    
    Even in DEC, which has a sexual orientation non-discrimination policy,
    there's plenty of prejudice and harrassment.  I don't want to
    appear to live in an ivory tower of freedom of expression; I know
    the real world and how difficult it is for most gays to be out.
    I'm not that out at work, there isn't much reason to be out.
    Since coming out here, I can be pretty sure I'll be "outed" by one 
    or more people, to who knows how many others.  Although I'd prefer 
    to come out myself to people I care about, I'm finding it doesn't 
    really bother me if people I don't know "out" me.  It just makes it 
    easier, because now I'll just assume that anyone who works with me knows.  
    If people treat me differently, so be it.  If my career track
    is hurt, that's life. If people know and treat me the same, that's even 
    better.  I'm even prepared for harrassment, though I hope it won't
    happen.
    
    In a previous reply here, Gerry said that knowing he's
    gay doesn't give people a clue to his personal life (he may
    have said sex life).  People certainly make a lot of assumptions 
    about gays, but it's mostly based on their lack of knowledge.  
    If people who like and respect me find out I'm gay, and 
    still like and respect me afterwards, I hope that counts as a 
    step in the right direction to a better knowledge and understanding 
    towards gays in general.  I'd like to think so, and in that case, 
    I'd say it's OK for me to be "outed."  I know I can *only* speak for
    myself, but I'm trying to sort out for myself why I don't
    see "outing" as the crime and tragedy some would make it.
    
    Somene called "outing" a weapon, and in the case of closet
    homosexuals working against gay rights, it *can* be turned against them.  
    I know that many people feel this is disloyal, using a heretofore straight
    tactic against other gays. But these are desperate times for gays,
    perhaps calling for desperate measures.  The more we fight for
    our rights, the more some straights want us to "assimilate" (i.e.,
    go back into the closet, don't flaunt, don't alienate, etc.).
    
    Perhaps the idea of "outing" will help closeted gays take control
    of their lives, and come out for themselves, rather than
    wait for others to do it for them.  If that happens, then this
    discussion will have some long-lasting benefits.
     
    Sorry if I've rambled, thanks for listening.
    
    Richard

>>What I am saying is "both 
>>are important, and I'm not going to place one above the other."
>
> We have two (according to you) completely opposite rights: the right to
>privacy and the right to grieve. Why exactly the need to grieve must be
>a public spectacle for gay people, I have not yet understood. But that is what 
>is being proffered. 

When heterosexual spouses put obituaries in papers and hold funeral 
processions for their dead partners, it is loving ritual.  When gay 
spouses attempt to do the same thing, it is a spectacle.  Do the gay 
people create the spectacle, or do heterosexist heterosexuals 
create the spectacle?

>What you seem to forget is that gays are people
>first, gays second. 

I feel that I am advocating for our total humanity in a way that is 
more effective than the way you are choosing.  In the way that I am 
choosing, the portions of the gay human being that are considered to 
be different are accepted and valued; using your way, those 
differences are smoothed over, bullied, possibly ignored.

I understand fully that gay people need to operate within some
structure that society creates, within some larger group norm.  All I
want people to notice is that society has created this vicious double
standard that represses portions of gay people's humanity.  In
general, I am advocating the same types of things that most
heterosexuals honor or take for granted: for instance, the right to
mourn publicly, *just* *like* heterosexual spouses mourn publicly. 

"Mourning = good ritual," and "Mourning = spectacle" is an excellent 
example of how the actions are very much the same, but those actions 
are judged very differently depending on whether the participant is 
heterosexual or gay.


						--Gerry

>        Changing the focus from a
>    	gay's concrete position (which he has not refuted)...

I have refuted it, Joe.  It would be nice if you acknowledged whether 
you have have heard me.  (Or is your goal simply to misrepresent me?)

...but, anyway, I will refute you again.

>    	There is more to this topic than just some mythical "family."

Mythical to you, maybe.  Isn't it possible that some things in this 
world might exist without your direct experience or knowledge?  

>    	...but
>    	to discount the effects of outing on anyone outside of this 
>    	circle is nothing short of selfish.  

I have not discounted the pain of heterosexuals who might feel pain
due to outing.  I have said that, even counting the possible
(certainly not definite) pain of heterosexuals, outing, in some
instances, is still a good decision. 

"Who are you to judge whether someone should feel pain?"  First, I'm 
not saying they "should" feel pain; that is not my goal.  Second, I 
have the right to take action even though there is a possibility that 
someone might feel pain (heck, I can't control other people's 
emotions).  Who am I to go ahead with my plans even though it might 
cause pain?  I'm a person, that's who.  

Joe, the day you come to me and say that you have pledged to avoid
anything that might possibly cause anyone pain--regardless of any
benefits created--is the day that I will stop aiming for honorable
goals that may cause some residual pain.  (I can't emphasize enough
that "pain will be caused" is not necessarily true; that's a huge
LA-Law-type assumption.) 

>        And to decide for 
>    	heterosexuals that they have no input of value (not just in
>    	regard to the discussion, but in determining the value and effect 
>    	of this practice) is hardly different from deciding for the gay 
>    	to be outed that these actions are more important than their 
>    	effects on his life.
>    	The same attitudes supporting outing also seem to support the
>    	idea that heterosexuals cannot add value to this discussion.

I never said any of this; you did.

I said, yes, you do have input of value.  I said, yes, it would be a 
good idea for you to give your feedback to the gay community.

What I also said, though not as clearly as I might have, is that your 
attitude stinks.  The word that most embodies the attitude of most 
heterosexuals, in my opinion, is the word "condone."  [Thunder 
booming, voice amplified, bearded wise-man sitting on a throne atop a 
mountain]  "I CANNOT CONDONE THAT!!!"

Well, who asked you for permission?  Who asked you for your curtly
stated "this is right" or "this is wrong" statements?  Certainly not
us gay people. 

Note that the statements coming from most heterosexual people are not, 
"I've been thinking about this, and this is how I see it.  I think
that it would cause more harm than good.  Doesn't that make sense?"
That's what I would expect from people speaking from a limited
experience in the topic.  But, noooooo!  The statements come out more
like: "I know all that I need to know to make a decision on this. 
It's bad.  Absolutely.  Can't condone it."

It's that type of attitude that I maintain is something that gay 
people should ignore or push back on.  Your feedback?  Fine!  Your 
paternalistic judgement?  No way.  Consider it rejected.  At least by 
me.

Most gay people have lived in the closet and outside of the closet.  
Most gay people have experienced what it is like to loose a friend or 
job or family member once our orientation was discovered or revealed.  
Most gay people understand the phychological effects of gay 
publicly-elected officials slamming us in public and undermining our 
efforts.   Most gay people--on an experiential level--understand why 
our law of "Thou shalt not come out for other people" worked so well 
in the past, and we understand its shortcomings.  Most gay people 
understand the difference between keeping sexual orientation private 
and keeping sexual behavior private, and the double standard that 
society places on us (signs of heterosexuality are omnipresent and 
encouraged; signs of homosexuality are "flaunting it").

We are far more qualified to judge the effects of outing than you
heterosexuals are.  You don't have two legs to stand on in this part
of the debate.  Do you have valid opinions?  Of course!  And we would
like to hear them (seriously!).  It's just that you are coming at this
issue from an extremely limited experience and from a strongly limited
perspective.  Your limited positionality on the subject is seen in
your easy empathy for the closet case and the heterosexual family of
the dead person, and your almost total lack of empathy for gay people
who suffer under closeted politicians and for the gay family of the
deceased.  

Outing is done by gay people to gay people.  Feel free to send us your
data. We will make the final decision. 

Thank you very much for your input.

							--Gerry

    
    	RE: .97
    
    	What law that enables the police to come into a private home
    	and arrest a gay person. I know of no such laws, also could
    	you please report which SC decision you're talking about.
    
    	As, a sanity check, If I knew person x was a closet drunk
    	and he did not wish this made public, would I have the right
    	to out him because I might be a recovering drunk myself and
    	needed to show it can affect anyone? Why is this right to privacy
    	any different if the answer is no?
    
    	G_B

    I agree with the premise that the right to privacy for 
    heterosexuals should extend to homosexuals too.  I wasn't
    aware of the court ruling.  I am now more aware of some
    of the legal sanctions against gays.  Prejudice is so 
    pervasive and subtle sometimes that I find myself frequently
    shocked when a person who has been discriminated against
    points it out.  That is, some things which I took for granted
    such as the right to privacy for all people ISN'T extended
    to all people.    Jeff

    re .96

>>        Changing the focus from a
>>    	gay's concrete position (which he has not refuted)...
>
>I have refuted it, Joe.  It would be nice if you acknowledged whether 
>you have have heard me.  (Or is your goal simply to misrepresent me?)

    	OK, I've heard you.  No, my goal is not to misrepresent you,
    	but rather to demonstrate your inconsistencies.  

    	I don't think that heterosexuals can be limited in this discussion.
    	But I believe that you do not want heterosexuals in this discussion
    	(or at least you want them to have a limited value in what they 
    	say).  Other noters who have challenged this say that you don't 
    	mean to  say exactly that.

    	In .96 you have contradicted yourself on this point.  See below.
    	My impression of you opinion based on what you have worded most
    	strongly is that heterosexuals really DON'T belong in this
    	discussion.  You basically confirm my suspicions that I have
    	previously stated.

    	In .88 you say (in your PS at the bottom) "please take my notes
    	as a WHOLE and do not look at individual lines..."  I find that
    	a very difficult thing to do.  .96 is a good example of why.
    	It wavers in content from:

>I said, yes, you do have input of value.  I said, yes, it would be a 
>good idea for you to give your feedback to the gay community.

>Do you have valid opinions?  Of course!  And we would
>like to hear them (seriously!).  

    	to:

>Well, who asked you for permission?  Who asked you for your curtly
>stated "this is right" or "this is wrong" statements?  Certainly not
>us gay people. 

>Outing is done by gay people to gay people.  Feel free to send us your
>data. We will make the final decision. 
>
>Thank you very much for your input.
    
    	All this in the same entry.

    	Whether it was intended as such, the latter is certainly perceived
    	to be written with a very patronizing attitude.

    	How can I take such a note as a whole when it contradicts itself?


    	I can very much understand the point you make about different
    	perspectives.  I have not lived as an outed gay.  I have not 
    	experienced any of what you detail in the middle of .96.  
    	Frankly it sounds like a very difficult existence if living
    	an open gay lifestyle is all that you describe it to be.

    	Sometimes when I read descriptions such as that one, I cannot 
    	help but wonder if the real purpose of outing is to spread
    	that pain around by increasing the number of people to whom 
    	that hatred can be directed.  Spread the burden.  Increase
    	the numbers to make it seem more acceptable by being more
    	common.

    	You seem to concentrate on outing gay hypocrites.  Actually,
    	I don't see a reason NOT to do it in these cases.  I am with
    	you on this one.  But really, how many outings (either in numbers
    	or percentages) are for this purpose?  I was drawn into this
    	discussion over the point of outing dead gays.  I still don't
    	see the value.  I don't buy the "role model" argument at all.
    	As I've said before, of what value is the guy as a role model
    	when his life was lived as a lie of sorts?  At best he tells
    	those he left behind that "this 'role model' saw it was best
    	to remain closeted."  What is there to emulate?  And what of
    	all the male companions he left behind?  Won't they, by 
    	implication, also be outed?  Which leads me to my next point.

    	Why out living gays (non-hypocrites) for the sake of the "family"?
    	You state:

.96>Most gay people have experienced what it is like to loose a friend or 
.96>job or family member once our orientation was discovered or revealed.  

    	...and then you want to turn around and inflict that exact turmoil
    	on your own.  I just can't get beyond the contradictions.


    	Joe Oppelt
    
    
    	PS:  I, too, think that the legislation/rulings mentioned in
    	the previous few entries is absolutely unfair.  In fact I 
    	find them hard to believe.  Are they really being enforced?
    	

>    	In .96 you have contradicted yourself on this point.  

I don't think so.  I'll explain why I disagree.

There is a difference between asking for input and asking for 
permission.  The tone, the attitude, the tenor, the position of most 
heterosexual writing is not an offering of input; it is a judgemental 
giving or denying of permission, either stated or implied.

Let me see if I can use an anology.  I feel as if I have just written 
a documentation plan, and one of the informational reviewers is 
telling me that I can't (or shouldn't) write the technical manual.  I 
push back on the reviewer by saying, "I'm glad that you have given me 
your opinion, but I disagree with it."  The informational reviewer 
keeps pushing back on me about how wrong my choices are; s/he says 
that it is wrong for me to tell him/her that the comments are invalid, 
that s/he doesn't belong in the dialogue.  (I never said this.)

The informational reviewer is not a sign-off reviewer.  It is 
inappropriate for an informational reviewer to behave as if she or he 
has sign-off power over the product.  The informational reviewers are 
indirectly effected by the product; the sign-off reviewers are 
directly effected by the product.

On the issue of "outing," heterosexuals are informational reviewers.  
You do not have sign-off privileges.

>    	Whether it was intended as such, the latter is certainly perceived
>    	to be written with a very patronizing attitude.

I can see this.  It isn't easy when someone tells you that you've 
overstepped your bounds.

>    	How can I take such a note as a whole when it contradicts itself?

We are asking for your opinions.  We are not asking for your 
permission or judgement.  I don't see a contradiction in that.

>    	You seem to concentrate on outing gay hypocrites.  Actually,
>    	I don't see a reason NOT to do it in these cases.  I am with
>    	you on this one.  

Okay, let's agree to agree on this one, then.

>	But really, how many outings (either in numbers
>    	or percentages) are for this purpose?  

Actually, the gay community has used outing only a few times.  All 
three times that I can cite involve hypocritical gay politicians.  
And, in the Barney Frank incident, the outing was only threatened, not 
carried out.

Do you folks know how new this phenomenon is?  For a change, the 
heterosexual communities have picked up on a gay issue not only early, 
but before us gay folk have had a chance to work out the bugs 
ourselves.  The most commonly cited first "outing" was when Barney 
Frank threatened to reveal the names of prominent gay Republicans 
unless Lee Atwater and Co. stopped distributing gay-baiting letters 
referring to certain Democrats' "closets."  That was only about a year 
ago, or so.

>	I was drawn into this
>    	discussion over the point of outing dead gays.  I still don't
>    	see the value.  

My primary argument has not been role models.  It has been the right 
to mourn the loss of our family members just like heterosexual 
families do.  If I loose a spouse, I want to be able to mourn him, 
publicly (just like heterosexuals do), as my dead spouse.  The net 
effect of that action is "outing."  It is worth it to be able to mourn 
in the same way that heterosexuals do, to honor my primary loving 
relationship in the same way that heterosexuals do.

For people long gone, I do buy the role model stuff.  I need to know 
that smart, successful, and important people in this country's history 
were gay.  Maybe one of the reasons why you "don't buy" it, is because 
there is a big gap in our experiences.  If you listen, you will hear 
many gay people say that it is important for them to have role models, 
examples that show we don't have to grow up to be "doomed queens" or 
"bar dykes" (unless we want to).  In other words, successful people 
who merely _survive_ homophobia become our role models; it isn't 
necessary for them to be saint, for them to have come out themselves, 
or for them to have Norman Rockwell lives.  The survival is what we 
are emulating.  (Perhaps, as it becomes easier to be gay in this 
country, we will find role models who aren't embroiled in scandal or 
who are squeeky clean; until then, it's pretty darn neat that they 
aren't walking stereotypes, and that they are surviving and thriving.)

It's important for me to know that quality people like Walt Whitman,
Truman Capote, Tennessee Williams, Baynard Rustin, Barney Frank, Oscar
Wilde, Gertrude Stein, Rock Hudson, Lily Tomlin, Martina Navratilova
[bisexual], Michelle Shocked, David Scondras, Chastity Bono [okay,
okay, I'm stretching it a bit on that one...] are lesbian, gay, or
bisexual. 

>    	Why out living gays (non-hypocrites) for the sake of the "family"?
>    	You state:

I never said this.  

The only references I have made to "sake of the family" is when we out 
dead people during our mourning process.  I think it is important to 
note that the intention of the action, then, is public mourning (just 
like heterosexuals publicly mourn), not the outing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
>    	As, a sanity check, If I knew person x was a closet drunk
>    	and he did not wish this made public, would I have the right
>    	to out him because I might be a recovering drunk myself and
>    	needed to show it can affect anyone? Why is this right to privacy
>    	any different if the answer is no?

From the position I've been taking, this is not an accurate analogy.  
The accurate analogy would be this:

If I knew person x was a closet drunk and he did not wish this made
public, and if that person rallied people against AA, used his
position as a senator to undermine drunk driving laws, and constantly
used "alcoholics deserve everything they get!" rhetoric, would I have
the right to out him because I am a recovering drunk myself and need
to defend myself and the programs that help me to recover? 

Yes, absolutely.

_That_ is the more accurate analogy, in my opinion.

>    Bowers Vs Hardwick (1986) was the Supreme Court case by
>    which the court established that homosexuals have no right
>    to privacy. 

What's striking about Bowers vs Hardwick is that the police officer, 
attempting to deliver a citation for public drunkenness, entered 
Bower's bedroom uninvited (a roommate let the officer into the 
apartment), and saw Bowers engaged in oral sex with a man.  The ruling 
on this case acually said that Bowers had no right to consensual sex, 
with another man who is of age, in the privacy of his own bedroom 
(never mind his own home).

>    Heterosexuals it was established by the same
>    court are entitled to protection under the doctrine of a
>    right to privacy, that is, while it is against the law for
>    heterosexuals to practice sodomy if they do in their homes
>    the law may not interfer. It was determined that this protection
>    does not extend to homosexuals

From what I have read, this is not accurate.  The decision stated that
homosexuals do not have a right to sodomy.  The court "declined
opinion" on the rights of heterosexuals to engage in sodomy (which
means that the law can still be applied to heterosexuals and that it
can hold up in court).  The court did not discuss the privacy rights
of heterosexuals in regards to sodomy. 

The dissenting opinion mentioned the disparity between how the court 
treats heterosexuals and homosexuals, and how privacy should fit into 
the picture, but that was not a part of "the court's decision."

							--Gerry

>Second, I 
>have the right to take action even though there is a possibility that 
>someone might feel pain 

 Do you have the right to take action when it is most likely that it will cause
others pain? 

 Let's say that one of the guys with whom you play basketball had a brother
who was killed by some homophobes. But this guy feels that it wasn't the
homophobe's fault; he feels it was his brother's fault for being gay. And the
way he deals with it is by denouncing homosexuals as faggots at every 
opportunity, even though he knows you are gay and likes you even, but knows it
causes you pain to hear your brothers referred to as faggots. Is this his
right? Is it acceptable for him to grieve in this manner? What about when one
of your gay acquaintances decides he has heard enough and decides to beat up
the grieving person. What do you say or do?

 I guess it's fruitless to continue this discussion. You feel that outing of
dead people is just a dandy thing to do regardless of who gets hurt just so
long as it isn't you. I disagree, and always will.

 What I don't understand is how someone who purports to have loved another
would do something that that other person was against their whole life...

 The Doctah

    >  What I don't understand is how someone who purports to have 
    >  loved another would do something that that other person was 
    >  against their whole life...
    
    Some of us think that life is for the living.  The dead are past pain.
    
    After that, the conflict between who 'has the right' to inflict pain
    is, in my opinion, badly mistated.  Your flip descriptions of Gerry's
    position as "just a dandy thing to do" don't show that you are making
    any attempt to understand that there are two sides in this conflict.
    
    DougO

>>Second, I 
>>have the right to take action even though there is a possibility that 
>>someone might feel pain 
>
> Do you have the right to take action when it is most likely that it will cause
>others pain? 

Good question.

I think I'm going to be in trouble if I answer with an absolute 
("always" and "never" get people into trouble, I think).

So, I say, it depends.  In the case of outing a hypocritical 
politician, I say, yes, I do have the right to self-defense despite 
pain felt by the closet case and his family.  I would also say that, 
yes, I have the right to mourn a dead family member despite the 
possible pain felt by the heterosexual family.

In the case of "providing role models," then I feel as if I would 
cross a line with outing.  In this context, I don't think that gay 
people wanting role models outweighs the pain of the closeted gay 
person and her/his family.  I also think that my doing it for "his/her 
own good" is crossing the line; the closeted gay person's pain, and 
that of his/her family, is more important in this context.  

Let's look at your example:

> Let's say that one of the guys with whom you play basketball had a brother
>who was killed by some homophobes. But this guy feels that it wasn't the
>homophobe's fault; he feels it was his brother's fault for being gay. And the
>way he deals with it is by denouncing homosexuals as faggots at every 
>opportunity, even though he knows you are gay and likes you even, but knows it
>causes you pain to hear your brothers referred to as faggots. Is this his
>right? Is it acceptable for him to grieve in this manner? What about when one
>of your gay acquaintances decides he has heard enough and decides to beat up
>the grieving person. What do you say or do?

Oy!  Lots of questions here.

Very, very honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I would handle this 
differently depending on how close I am to this person.  In other 
words, am I friendly enough with this basketball buddy to withstand 
some pain from his ranting while I help him through a difficult time?  
Or, is he more of an acquaintance that I don't care that much about?  
If I care about him, I would align and empathize with his situation; 
it isn't difficult for me to empathize with rage over a brother's 
death, and I've been homophobic enough in the past to have believed 
that I "deserved" things.  I would walk in his shoes a bit; when the 
time was right (when his rage and grief subsided), I would put more of 
my needs out on the table (I need for him to cool it with the abusive 
language).

If he's an acquaintance, I'd probably confront him.  I wouldn't care 
how much he's hurting; I wouldn't want to put up with his bull.  I'm 
not sure which scenario would play out.  I'm not much of a fighter, so 
it would take an awful lot for me to be pushed to that level.

Okay, now let's talk about "rights" and "acceptability."  Is it 
acceptable that he grieves like that?  The way that I try to live my 
life is that I accept all that is real, all that is happening in the 
moment.  So, it won't get me good results at all to say to myself, 
"This is unacceptable!!!"  That's not going to get me anywhere.  It's 
happening; I accept it.  What am I going to do from this point on to 
get me to where I want to go?  Where I want to go is a peaceful place 
in which both his needs and my needs are met to a large extent 
(compromise might be necessary).

Does he have the right to mourn that way?  I view "rights" as 
contractual agreements by people in a society.  I think that we have 
the right to free speech because we have all agreed to grant each 
other that right.  When the time comes that most of us no longer agree 
to that, the right goes away.  To the best of my knowledge, he has a 
right to speak.  To the best of my knowledge, I have the right to 
speak.  I don't see any "right" of mine that could prevent him from doing 
what he's doing (I don't have the right "to never hear offensive 
terms").  I don't think that "rights" will help me and him to come to 
some kind of peaceful truce.  I think I'd have to take another 
approach to get what I want.

The only other thing that I would like to point out is that, in your
example, the person is purposefully and (debatably) maliciously
attacking someone without doing it in self defense.  None of my
examples include gay people purposefully and maliciously attacking
someone without doing it in self defense; the pain involved in my
scenarios of outing is not always there and it is residual to the main
intent of the action.  In other words, the main intention of outing
(as I've okayed it) is not to harm someone; it is to defend oneself or
to mourn a family member.  The intentions are honorable and the pain,
if it exists at all, is residual.  Through outing, we are not aiming
pain at anybody on purpose. 

> I guess it's fruitless to continue this discussion. You feel that outing of
>dead people is just a dandy thing to do regardless of who gets hurt just so
>long as it isn't you. I disagree, and always will.

I don't think it's dandy.  I feel for the people who may get hurt.  

But I can understand why you might not believe me.  You would have to 
know me better than you do to sense my compassion and concern.

> What I don't understand is how someone who purports to have loved another
>would do something that that other person was against their whole life...

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.  Again, context is everything.  
Maybe the dead person made it very clear before death, "Please be 
discreet at my service."  Maybe that would set the tone for mourning.

I don't know.

I just want to have it available as an option, because, under certain 
scenarios, it might be appropriate.

							--Gerry

>I would also say that, 
>yes, I have the right to mourn a dead family member despite the 
>possible pain felt by the heterosexual family.

 Ok- what about if your departed lover had homosexual siblings that would
almost certainly have repurcussions to deal with as a result of your outing
their brother? Would you then find it within yourself to mourn in such a manner
that you would not adversely affect them, or wouldn't it matter?

 The Doctah

    Good grief, Doctah- Ger lays out a huge explanation of how complex
    this issue is and how he treats several different aspects of it, and
    you keep playing 'what-if' with him.  I would at least expect you
    to acknowledge his effort.
    
    DougO

I'd like to say thanks to all who have patiently read my Outing notes
(which got rather long in this discussion).  I learn a lot by writing.
 In case you hadn't noticed, my position shifted as I wrote more. 
Some things got clearer, some things got muddier. 

I am also really, really happy with the level of respect that all
folks showed gay people in this discussion. Agreement or no agreement,
the respect was there, and I thank you for that. 

All in all, I learned a lot.  However, I also learn a lot from
listening, too, and I find it hard to write and to listen at the same
time.  So, I am going to shift into read-only mode for a while.  I 
feel as if I've taken my position on Outing as far as I want to go 
without listening a while.

Again, thanks for hanging in there with me on this topic.


							--Gerry

    
    I am not too active a noter but have been following this discussion
    closely.  I am very impressed with the restraint being taken in
    what could become a very personal name-calling situation. 
    
    In particular I appreciate Gerry's input. Too often do we have only
    one viewpoint given. However we haven't seen too much more input
    from the gay point of view. It happens that in today's Ottawa Citizen
    there is a fairly large article dealing with outings. Following
    are some of the comments and quotes.
    
    Gabriel Rotello is the editor of "Outweek" an influential homosexual
    plubication. He made the decision to print the story about Malcom
    Forbes. He says the aim of outing is to reduce prejudice against
    homosexuals by ending a media conspiracy that treats gay life as
    a "dark evil secret that needs to be covered up." 
    
    Following is his rationale for publishing the story. "The rationale
    for the Forbes piece was to spark the debate which it very effectively
    did over whether the gay or lesbian community should continue to
    support the idea that the press has an obligation to lie and cover
    up the homosexuality of public figures."
    
    "You can talk about celebrity drug addiction, about hetersexual
    escapades, about a movie star beating up her little girl. But if
    you don't talk about a famous public figure's homosexuality, the
    implication is very clear. The implication is that homosexuality
    is worse than anything else in the world...that it is the most
    horrendous, disgusting, evil thing in the world."
    
    "We as gay people reject that argument. We don't think being gay
    is bad... We think that when the public discovers that gay people
    are not just freaks living in a couple of gay ghettos, but are actually
    some of their most revered senators, congressmen, movie stars and
    captains of industry, then homophobia in our society will be dealt
    a very serious blow."
    
    "We are calling on the press to stop practising a double standard,
    to stop the lies, to start printing the truth....which is that many
    of the most popular people in the world are gay and lesbian."
    
    Rotello predicts outing will continue because mainstream press has
    discovered that it sells. But he also said that his publication
    follows a code of ethics. "We're only talking about public
    figures...people who have traded their right to privacy for some
    other advantages in life. People who are not public figures have
    not done so and their privacy should be scrupulously protected."
    
    Publisher Ray Chalker of "San Fransico Sentinel", another gay
    publication, just fired an editor for running a story in his absence
    that made allegations of homosexuality against a prominent California
    school official. "The whole situation is getting out of hand," says
    Chalker. "It's causing terrible friction. This is going to split
    the community if it goes on. It's causing terrible friction. It's
    also causing fear among a lot of people. I've been getting phone
    calls from friends who now fear exposure. It's insidious. It's a
    witch hunt. Everyone is scared to death."
    
    So even as has been seen in this conference people can't agree whether
    it is good or bad or if the situation is dependent on the person
    or the circumstances. 
    
    I think that the worst of this is that, as Rotello says it will
    sell newspapers, and that means that we will see more and more
    unsubstantiated allegations in things like the Enquirer and papers
    of its ilk. This will cause more harm than any true outing regardless
    of the reasons for it.
    
    Roger

 I was asked to post this note anonymously for a gay friend of mine. It was 
attached to a message in which he came out to me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anonymous.  That's the way that it has to be.

Very few gay people know that I'm gay, and, that's the way that it's got
to be anonymous..  In another conference someone made the comment that
"gays fear gays more than they fear straights" (a very astute observation
made by a straight person).  From my limited perspective, this is quite
true.  For the most part, most of the people that know that I'm gay are
straight.

I have seen some of my (few) gay friends thoroughly and absolutely destroyed
because they do not follow the party line of gay politics.  Because they
do not support gay rights legislation they are labeled as "homophobic" or
"hypocrites" (the more polite words).  From what I can tell, there appears
to be a substantial number of gays DO NOT support gay rights legislation!

Keep in mind that what you people read here (that of 'pro' outing) is the
opinion of an infinitesimally small segment of the class of individuals known
as "gay".  Who are the  other 99.999% of gay men and women that you don't know?

You'll probably never know them because they will continue to live in the
closet.  When you are out of the closet you loose a great deal of your rights
to live your life the way that you really want to...you loose these rights not
to the *true* homophobic class of individuals, but, to the gay vocal activist.
The object of my affection is a male - this does not mean that I must go
to, and, support, gay rights legislation, gay pride marches, gay rodeos,
gay games, gay bars, gay-this, and, gay-that...

My sexual orientation does not dictate who I support for President of the
United States, what bars I go to, what movies I like, where I shop, the
beaches I go to, the events that I support and contribute to, and most
importantly, the respect for my fellow human being.  That respect includes
the privacy of my fellow human being.

I *suspect* that he vast majority of gay males and females are NOT supportive
of "outing" for any reason what-so-ever.  It is a blatant and despicable
invasion of privacy - straight or gay - your right to privacy remains the same.
One may surround their "logic" with phrases such as "role model" or
"they deserve it", or anything else, but, the fact of the matter is, and
will remain that outing is terrorism and blackmail clothed in fancy
language.

Also, consider another perspective.  That person who wants to "out" another
person (for whatever reason) is not the kind of person that I would EVER
trust with confidential information OF ANY NATURE!  Given that he (or she)
has set their self up as judge and jury with respect to the sexual preference of
another person...what is to say that he/she may well do the same with *any*
confidential information?

The vast majority of gay males and females are your next door neighbors,
your mail carrier, the person that sacks your groceries, the mechanic, the
sales clerk, the teacher, the engineer....we are the original "silent majority"
and I ask that you do not judge us by the "vocal minority".  We respect the
rights and privacy of others and anticipate the same in return - not only
from the heterosexual members of society, but, by the homosexual members of
society.

    re: .110  Points well taken.
    
    While I don't agree 100% with all of it (and *do not* want to dilute
    the sincerity of the note with nit-picks) the issue of the silent
    majority being bullied by the vocal minority rings ever so true.
    The issue isn't limited to the gay community.  Certain shrill voices in
    the Black community would demand I bemore a bow tie-wearing Farrakhan
    supporter 'cause of the color my skin.  I say "flunk" 'em.
    
    Stand tall, friend.
    
    Larry

First of all, I'd like to say that the opinions that I've expressed in 
this file are--in my experience--in the extreme minority of current 
gay thought.  Most gay people I know (let's say, over 50%) feel that 
outing is always wrong.  I would estimate that 20% align with me and 
say that it can be okay if the person is attacking the gay community 
or if the person is dead.  A significant number of gay people are 
undecided.  And a very, very few people think that outing is okay all 
the time, under any reasons (1%? Less???).

The National Lesbian and Gay Task Force, the Human Rights Campaign 
Fund, most liberal gay leaders, and other mainstream gay organizations 
have all come out with stances that oppose outing.  ACT UP has 
remained neutral, stating that it has not decided what its stance is 
on outing.

[A side note on gay rights bills: in one poll done in San Francisco, I 
read that around 60% of the gay people approved of gay-rights 
legislation and 15% opposed it (others were undecided).]

So, I'm a bit "out there" with my opinion about outing.  But I stand 
by it.  I also claim that, in response to the notes that I've entered, 
I've seen significant movement on the issue from people who used to 
feel that outing should never be used.  I'm seeing people open up the 
issue to thought, when their minds had been closed, when the issue had 
been prejudged based on previously held values and information.  I'm 
happy to see thought happening around the issue.  I don't think that 
it is wise to make any action "unthinkable" or to dismiss anything 
without questioning.

Now, I'd like to talk a little bit about our anonymous entry, here:

You say that being anonymous is "the way it has to be."   I would like 
to point out to you that this is your opinion and not the absolute 
Truth with a capital T.  If it was the absolute truth, then how do you
explain the likes of me (and people like me), a completely openly gay
man.  And don't give me an "I'm different" or an equally weak "You
don't understand."  I am not superman; I am a male human being.  I had
a homophobic, heterosexual family.  I have worked with homophobic
people.  I have had homophobic, heterosexual friends, and I know what
it is like to loose friends and to fear loosing friends from them
finding out about my gayness. 

But what is this?  Some people live openly gay lifestyles and some
don't.  And some openly gay people live happily and successful, and
some closeted gay people live desperate and miserable.  And some
openly gay people live desperate and miserable, and some closeted gay
people live happily and successful.  Looks like there are lots of 
other factors that we need to consider about "the way it is."

So don't give me this "that's the way it's got to be."  You are
kidding yourself, and you're trying to pass it off in this notes file
as "truth."  The truth is that you have made a choice (as I have)
about how to live your life, and that choice has certain benefits and
draw backs.  You made your bed; sleep in it.  And don't pass it off as
Fate. 

You also talk about your friends who have been "thoroughly and absolutely 
destroyed" by other gay people.  This sounds really fascinating to me. 
I would love to hear the details.  What happened to them?  Did they 
get cut off the A-Gay list?  Did they get dirty looks at a party?  Did 
they not get invited to a party?  Did they have gay people who refused 
to associate with them because of their closetedness?  Did they have 
people who felt that they could not form an intimate relationship with 
a person who did not respect him/herself enough to be open about love?

This is indeed sad (I'm serious!), but I don't think this qualifies as 
"thoroughly and absolutely destroyed."  What I qualify as "thoroughly 
and absolutely destroyed" is being beaten and killed in the streets,
being kicked out of jobs, being kicked out of apartments, and so
forth.  You know, the kinds of things that openly gay people do not do
to each other.  You know, the kinds of things that heterosexuals do to
gay people in the streets and in our communities.  You know, the kinds
of things that you and your closeted buddies SUPPORT by opposing
gay-rights bills. 

I don't have a lot of sympathy for your "destroyed lives" when
you--through your politics--are actively engaging in the destruction
of other gay people.  In my moral system, you deserve to be denied
access to parties, and dumped for openly gay people who can engage in
intimate relationships with openness, pride, and health. 

After all, my friend, don't think that your closetedness doesn't say an
awful lot about how much you fear, loathe, and disapprove of your own
homosexuality.  Don't think that you're covering up your homosexuality 
also covers up your own self-hatred.  And don't try to pull me into a 
relationship in which my love for you has be covered up with the same 
self-hating cover.  If there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, 
then you wouldn't need to hide it.  If there was nothing wrong with 
what you are doing by staying in the closet, you wouldn't be fighting 
so desperately to undermine those of us who are open and who are 
working towards a better, more open, more enlightened day.

And that's what this is all about, isn't it?  It isn't about "privacy"
(what a rouse _that_ word is), because our "gayness" is no more
private information than a wedding ring, a coffee-station discussion
about what happened this weekend, or a picture of a loved-one at the
desk.   This is _really_ about the undermining of anything that might
shake up your closet, this is about the attacking of anything that
might make you change a little bit or work a little bit or be
concerned a little bit about anything other than yourself.  This is
about your creature comforts and about you being able to feel
"right"...at the expense of anyone who wants to live more openly than
you, because, of course, that might accidently shake up your closet. 

Go ahead.  STAY in your closet.  Just don't get in the way of those of
us who are working for a better day, and we promise not to get in the
way of your self-censorship and self-limitation.  And if you
consistently attack us, our deal has been deemed null and void; we
openly gay people will have to defend ourselves from your selfish,
self-hating attacks.  To remain open and healthy, if we have to break
up with you, we will.  If we have to avoid inviting you to parties, we
will.  If we have to stop socializing with you because it's too hard
for us not to get caught up in the self-hating poison of your
closetedness, then we will.  If we have to out you, we will. 

So, stand tall, my friend.  Though watch your head.  There isn't much 
room to stand tall in a closet of fear, denial, and self-hatred.


							--Gerry

    Wow. I am sure that is a rough thing for him to read Gerry but
    it sounds as if you have given him a few things to think about.
    I respect your efforts to improve the Gay image and make a wholesome
    self-respecting life for yourself and other Gay people.   Jeff

    
    
    Thanks, Gerry!!!  As another gay person who has made the choice to be
    "out to the world" and who has taken some lumps for it I can honestly
    say that it's the best decision I've ever made.  People who have broken
    off friendships, etc., weren't worth having in my life in the first
    place, evidently.  I've never been happier.  I only trust our
    "anonymous" friend can find some peace -- he sounds miserable.
    
    	Greg

My note seems to have touched a very deep cord in you, Mark.  I'm
surprised that it had such a strong effect on someone--at least from
what I can gather--who is not personally involved in what I had to
say. 

I hope you're doing okay.


							--Ger

    re: .116 (Mark)
    
    While Gerry expressed some strong feelings, Mark, I think
    he did so within the confines of company policies.  On the
    other hand, I feel you've stepped significantly over the
    boundaries of 6.54 in using language like "crock of sh*t",
    "sleazy, underhanded", and "whining Liberal".  I'd like
    to request that you reword your reply.
    
    Steve
    

    
    What is PC for "whining Liberal" .. ?

    
>    What is PC for "whining Liberal" .. ?

Ha!  Let's see...

[From page 336 of the "Guide to Liberal PCness"...]

"...the person obviously felt that he was in safe enough space to be 
able to share his feedback on the situation.  His venting of his 
current emotional state will broaden the boundaries of himself and his 
position as viewed by the remaining people in the file.  His sharing 
of himself, his making himself vulnerable in the safe space, will 
enrich and nurture the group, enabling and empowering it to be more 
open, honest, and genuine with each other.  And furthermore..."


[My eyes are turning brown...]

;-)


							--Ger

>So, I'm a bit "out there" with my opinion about outing.

 It is not a stretch to say that your opinions on outing correspond with most of
the rest of your opinions.

>You say that being anonymous is "the way it has to be."   I would like 
>to point out to you that this is your opinion and not the absolute 
>Truth with a capital T. 

 I am amazed that you find it necessary to state the obvious. It is the way it 
has to be FOR HIM. You, on the other hand, can CHOOSE to live YOUR LIFE however
you want. I would venture to say that much of the reason that he chooses to
live the way he has is due to people like you! (Not that I expect you to 
understand why or care).

>You know, the kinds
>of things that you and your closeted buddies SUPPORT by opposing
>gay-rights bills. 

 That is an absolute crock of <manure>, Gerry. You have alot of nerve passing off
+your+ politics as "Truth" (with a capital T, no less). But you play the
"politically correct" game. Well, as all of us know, your "Truth" is just
another opinion, and a pretty sleazy underhanded accusation...

>I don't have a lot of sympathy for your "destroyed lives" when
>you--through your politics--are actively engaging in the destruction
>of other gay people.

 More BS. Just because one is not a whining liberal doesn't mean that one is
"actively engaging" in the destruction of anyone!

>In my moral system, you deserve to be denied
>access to parties, and dumped for openly gay people who can engage in
>intimate relationships with openness, pride, and health. 

 Gerry the judge. "You deserve." It's so amusing to see one who whines 
incessantly about being judged by others (and not liking it) judging someone
else for following their feelings and moral systems. It is a real hoot, Gerry.

>After all, my friend, don't think that your closetedness doesn't say an
>awful lot about how much you fear, loathe, and disapprove of your own
>homosexuality.

 I think the use of "my friend" in this context is the height of condescension.

>If there was nothing wrong with 
>what you are doing by staying in the closet, you wouldn't be fighting 
>so desperately to undermine those of us who are open and who are 
>working towards a better, more open, more enlightened day.

 This view of the closeted gay that desparately seeks to undermine open gays
exists cheifly in your own mind. It would seem as though you feel that any
closeted gay that doesn't support your pro-gay agenda is "desparately trying to 
undermine" the open gays. That is certainly not the case. Even though there
may be SOME closeted gays that act that way, it is certainly not the rule, and
definitely not the case in point.

>This is _really_ about the undermining of anything that might
>shake up your closet, this is about the attacking of anything that
>might make you change a little bit or work a little bit or be
>concerned a little bit about anything other than yourself.

 Translation: if the way I live my life makes things more difficult for you, 
tough beans. But don't you DARE live your life in a way that doesn't facilitate
mine.

>If we have to out you, we will. 

 Aren't you tough? I know I'm impressed.

 The Doctah

PS- .113 tells me alot about why people stay closeted.

 re: Steve

 I believe the edited version, while not as nice you'd you like to see, conforms
to 6.54. Please write (mail) if you disagree.

 re: Gerry

 Yes, what you wrote did strike a chord. You impugned the character of a fellow
employee (who happens to be a good friend of mine). You failed to accept this
person acting according to the dictates of his heart, presumably due primarily
to political differences. You misrepresented him so completely that I could
not take it sitting down. Since I know "the rest of the story," your attempts
to paint the individual in question as someone who assists in the debasing of
gay people to be so entirely without merit as to be on the verge of malice.

 In particular (besides the attacks on personal integrity), the most galling
part of your note was the implication that the gay people my friend knows whose
lives have been "completely and utterly destroyed" were suffering from the
emotional equivalent of a hangnail. That was way out of line.

 The Doctah

PS- Those of you who sent supportive mail; thanks.

re: .122

 Just be glad it wasn't aimed at you. 

 I got rid of the s-word.

 There is no acceptable euphemism for whining liberal, and I never directly 
stated that anyone was one.

 The sleazy underhanded thing I talked about really was sleazy and underhanded,
and I'm not going to say it wasn't- that would be a lie.

 The Doctah

    re .124:
    
    > There is no acceptable euphemism for whining liberal, and I never
    > directly stated that anyone was one.
    
    That's good because it would definitely be in bad taste, and redundant
    besides.
    
    :-)
    
    - M

>You misrepresented him so completely that I could
>not take it sitting down. Since I know "the rest of the story," your attempts
>to paint the individual in question as someone who assists in the debasing of
>gay people to be so entirely without merit as to be on the verge of malice.

Oh, but his claims that openly gay people hurt closeted gay people
(still waiting for those examples...),  his claims that closeted gay
people cannot come out because of those blue-meanie, openly gay folks
(utter bull!), his opposition to gay-rights bills that would help
openly-gay people _without_ forcing closeted folks out, and his claims
that the openly gay people voicing opinions in this file are of such a
minority as not to have merit are A-Okay with you, Mark.

I'm a bully because I beat up on his closet and suggest--from intense,
personal, examined experience with thousands of gay men--that there
may be selfishness and self hatred going on there.  He's a saint
because he attacks a whole group of people, and THEN gets all bent out
of shape because us openly gay people won't open our arms and take him
into our families.  (If he puts down the knife, maybe I'll open my
arms....)

I am perfectly willing to let him have his space to be himself, but I
_refuse_ to honor his closet as a Fact Of Life rather than something
that he chooses according to his value system.  The openly-gay people
are willing to have restrictions placed on us: restricted promotions,
restricted places to live, restricted ability to have friends who
won't reject us because of our sexuality, and restricted ability to a
life without discomfort.

Why do a lot of us do that?  Because we understand that the only way
to love in a healthy way is to behave as if there is nothing wrong
with that love.  When you self-censor, sneak, note anonymously, hold
back information from "loved ones," invent a face for people to love
instead of putting yourself out there, freak out when your lover hugs
you in your own home because the blinds aren't drawn, vote against
bills that will help openly-gay people (they also help closeted people
who are discovered by accident, as well), and attack openly-gay people
for rejecting the love that they are unwilling to put forth without
shame, you send an extremely huge message to yourself and to others
that you are doing something wrong, that you are doing something that
deserves to be hidden, that deserves shame.

Why do a lot of people stay in the closet?  The reasons vary.  My last
roommate, whom I respect very much, was a public-school teacher who 
was closeted at work, but he was supportive of gay events and out to
selective people.  It would be interesting, now that his job is
protected by a gay-rights bill, if he maintains his "Teachers can't
come out" excuse--an excuse that I think is reasonable--or is it more
a rationalization for him avoiding possible discomfort.

Attacks on openly-gay people aside, THAT'S the reason why gay-rights
bills scare a lot of closeted people so much.  If the law protects
them, then the excuse of "that's the way it's got to be" is further
undermined, and they might have to take a peak at the selfishness,
the pain, the anger, and the self hatred.   (Did you ever wonder, if
conservative gays are so unhappy with the gay community, why they
refuse to come out and form an alternative, conservative gay
community?  Why they instead consistently align themselves with
closetedness as "the way it's got to be" and with heterosexual people? 
Who's doing the whining, here?  Who is doing the proactive work to
make things better?)

Then there are other closeted gay people, like my Ex of about 5 years
ago, who make a lot of money in a field that they refuse to limit or
budge from, who maintain conservative politics that routinely
undermine gay people, and who generally look out for Number One (since
we all look out for our own selves, this next part is key...) AT THE
EXPENSE OF ALL OTHERS. 

The quote from my Ex is sooo telling: "The gay community is not going
to move forward on MY back."  (Too bad he didn't understand that he
was a part of the very community he was so arrogantly keeping "off his
back.")  And there is an element of this in every closeted person I've
ever met (including myself, when I was closeted):  selfishness.  They
don't want to deal with the hassle of life as an openly-gay person; it
is more comfortable (and, many times, lucrative) to hold back,
sometimes to construct false images.  So the question becomes, how
much selfishness is involved in any one person being in the closet? 
The little bit that most of us have, enough to keep the life centered
on the self but still involved in the community?  Or is it a level of
selfishness that crosses a line, that demands the attack of people who
choose differently?

For me, our anonymous noter crossed the line.  He wasn't just living
in the closet, describing his choices and why he made them.  He 
aligns himself politically with people who hate and attack openly gay
people, he attacks openly gay people's argument in this file, and he
accuses openly gay people of attacking closeted people and keeping
them in the closet.  (Don't pawn off responsibility for your closet on
anyone but yourself!)

Selfishness.  Me first, and, to guarantee it, I'm attacking any person
who doesn't align with me.

I won't have any of it.  He chooses to be conservative.  Fine with me.
He chooses to be closeted.  Fine with me (it's not my life).  But
when he takes his case to a heterosexual file about how the nasty,
bad, openly-gay folks don't love him and his kind enough, I think it's
time for an alternative opinion, especially when he puts it forth with
"that's the way it's got to be."  No, that's the way he makes it for
himself. That's his choice.  And, for the healthy love and life of all
gay people, I don't support it.  Is that a judgment?  Yes.  And I
stand by it (until more information shows me an error).

To quote Rita Mae Brown: "I've heard all the reasons for not coming
out, and they're all [garbage]."  We can still love and respect some people
who are in the closet, but their reasons for staying in the closet are
selfish; the reasons don't stop being [garbage] just because there are a
lot of other things to love about them.  It's time to stop pretending
like there's some kind of virtue in closets that are hinering us at 
best and killing us at worst.


							--Gerry

   Outing: The Power of the Closet

   by Michael Bronski

   [reprinted without permission, Gay Community News, Vol 17 No 45, Page 8
   June 3 1990]


   _Outing_ [italics -jlf]. First it was a verb, as in "to out someone from
   his or her closet." Then it became a media event as _OutWeek_ magazine
   posthumously brought Malcolm Forbes from behind the closet door and
   publicly claimed him as a member of the gay community. Within weeks the
   practice became a cultural phenomenon. Joan Rivers kept mentioning
   outing with disdain on her television show in between grilling her
   guests about their personal lives; the _New York Times_ published an
   op-ed piece by Randy Shilts and William Safire explored the term's
   etymology in his _Sunday Magazine_ column on language; the _Village
   Voice_ ran an article by _OutWeek_'s Michelangelo Signorili defending
   his Forbes piece, which was then followed by a flurry of letters; _Time_
   threw in its two cents worth and _Newsweek_ did a full page news
   analysis, and most of the other straight media followed suit with their
   own pieces, never quite being able to decide if they were writing news,
   gossip, or editorials.

   Now the phenomenon seems to have escalated into a war. Gabriel Rotello,
   _OutWeek_ editor, was physically attacked by an audience member on the
   _Geraldo_ show; those claiming to be concerned with journalistic ethics
   have attacked outing -- in no uncertain terms -- as unethical; and heads
   of both local and national gay organizations are being besieged by
   reporters asking if the lesbian and gay community condones such a
   practice. That most skilled of non-combative interviewees, Barbara
   Bush, has attacked outing: "I am not one of those people who believe in
   `outing,'" she informed reporters recently. "I think there is no
   justification for that." Even the most innocent of gay gatherings has
   often become a battlefield as tempers flare, ideological lines are
   drawn, and serious arguing beings. And while it is unclear if outing is
   actually "in," there is no doubt that it is certainly hot.

   But with all the heat generated by the outing discussions, there is very
   little light forthcoming. The debate seems to be played out on the high
   emotional fringes, without political or historical contexts, and with
   little attempt to locate it in the actual -- rather than theoretical --
   world. The current wave of outing-as-a-political-act surfaced about 18
   months ago when gay novelist Armistead Maupin -- who has always placed a
   high value on _everyone_ coming out -- began writing articles in which
   he named famous closeted lesbians and gay men. A few gay papers printed
   the pieces; no straight papers would. Last June, when Republicans were
   gay-baiting House Speaker Thomas Foley, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank send
   shock waves through political ranks when he threatened to expose
   prominent gay Republicans. The gay-baiting stopped and Frank never had
   to show his cards.

   Since that time, _OutWeek_ printed its Malcolm Forbes story and has,
   sometimes expressly or in passing, mentioned the sexual orientation of
   such varied people as record industry mogul David Geffen and Greta
   Garbo. And ACT UP groups around the country have targeted officials such
   as Illinois Governor Jim Thompson and Republican Senator Mark Hatfield
   of Oregon, whom they claim are closeted homosexuals with a history of
   voting against gay rights and progressive AIDS legislation. ACT UP
   members in Portland even altered a Hatfield campaign billboard to read:
   "Hatfield, Closeted Gay: Living a Lie -- Voting to Oppress." The gay
   Washington rumor mill, once filled with news of who was and who wasn't,
   is now buzzing with speculation of who is going to be brought out next.
   As one outing advocate pointedly put it: "Come out while you are still
   able to do it yourself."

   Celebrities, whose lives have always been the basis for speculation,
   have also been touched by the debate. Richard Chamberlain recently drew
   ire when, after allegedly having come out in a French magazine, he
   allowed his press again to deny the story.

   The notion of outing-as-a-political-act did not originate with Maupin's
   articles, however. As early as 1972, writer and gay liberationist John
   Paul Hudson predicted/speculated in his 1972 manifesto/travel
   guide/history of gay life, _The Gay Insider USA_, that in the future a
   group of radical gays (known by various names including "The Lavender
   Conspiracy," "Operation Empty Closet" and "Mission: Possible") would
   launch a campaign to bring famous people out of the closet, either by
   persuasion or force. And although Hudson's nearly 20-year-old fantasy
   was not the blueprint for '90s outing, it speaks to the tension that has
   _always_ existed between those who live openly lesbian and gay lives and
   those who remain closeted. There is no doubt that the emotional pain of
   the closet is also accompanied by considerable social privilege, and
   that this is going to engender anger and resentment.

   This tension and anger is built into the very fabric of lesbian and gay
   life: the real pressures to remain closeted vs. the real pressures to
   come out. But because of AIDS and the increasing prevalence of
   conservative social policy (and when we are talking about access to AIDS
   treatments, _deadly_ social policy) the stakes seem much larger:
   literally a matter of life and death. The anger that was once
   personalized or sublimated is open and seen as outrightly political.

   One of the reasons that outing has been so difficult to discuss is that
   the straight nontabloid press has, for so long, monopolized and distorted
   the very basic tenets of the debate. Whenever writers of the straight
   press have written about outing and -- to the last one, condemned it --
   their arguments have been uniform. It is unethical, they claim, to bring
   people out of the closet because it is an invasion of privacy. What
   people do in bed is nobody's business. Even public figures deserve
   private lives. Any many claim that printing information about someone's
   homosexuality will leave a newspaper open to charges of libel.

   Such arguments may sound reasonable, but the reality of the actions of
   the straight press are so different and antithetical to both the spirit
   and the letter of their stated anti-outing stance that their "ethics"
   are nothing less than outright hypocrisy and duplicitous cant.

   Although there is a general consensus in the press against outing, the
   fact is -- as Kevin Cathcart of Boston's Gay and Lesbian Advocates and
   Defenders has pointed out -- that almost _every_ newspaper in the
   country does it -- from the _New York Times_, to the _Boston Globe_ and
   most recently the student-run _Harvard Crimson_. These papers have
   consistently printed the names and _addresses_ of men who were arrested
   for sexual-related activities: certainly a form of outing. And yet,
   while the apologists for media ethics decry the posthumous outing of
   Malcolm Forbes, they are silent on this.

   But the hypocrisy about outing in the straight press goes even deeper
   than this obvious example. A person's homosexuality is often mentioned by
   the mainstream press when it wants to discredit a public figure. The
   _New York Times_ had no trouble implying for years that red- and
   queer-bating McCarthy sidekick Roy Cohn was a homosexual, or mentioning
   that right-wing fundraiser Terry Dolan was gay in his obituary. Yet no
   paper would ever print the rumors surrounding high-level presidential
   advisor Donald Regan or Nancy Reagan's best friend, socialite Jerry
   Zipkin.

   The question of the newsworthiness of the private lives of public
   figures is a complex one, but the mainstream press has always maintained
   a double standard on it. The media have diligently imposed a complete
   blackout on all gay activity that was not of a damaging nature. On the
   one hand, it is fine to talk about the extraordinarily commonplace
   relationship problems of Donald and Ivana Trump but, on the other, to
   never mention Malcolm Forbes's (relatively open) gay social life. The
   press consistently covered-up the widespread knowledge of Francis
   Cardinal Spellman's homosexual activities but was more than willing to
   broadcast the details of the early gay sex-related charges against Rep.
   Gerry Studds. For the straight press, being gay has always been -- and
   to a large degree remains -- a dirty little secret only to be brought
   up in order to hurt people.

   The notion of "privacy" that is so frequently used to denounce outing is
   one with very specific social parameters and uses. And while people
   always speak of "privacy" as a right, the actuality is that it is a form
   or protection for those with power: as a power broker in the straight
   media, you would want to protect the "privacy" of Cardinal Spellman, but
   not some man entrapped in a men's room. (The fact that doctors, lawyers
   and other professionals can very often bargain to keep their names out
   of the newspapers when they are arrested on morals charges only speaks
   again to the notion of selectiveness of "privacy.")

   One of the more inventive and pernicious arguments for the "privacy" of
   sexual orientation information is a comparison to rape promulgated in an
   article on outing by Suzanne Braun Levine in the _Columbia Journalism
   Review_. By comparing the disclosure of someone's sexual preference to
   that of the names of rape survivors, Braun Levine only reinforces the
   notion that gayness is a dirty little secret forced upon its "victims."
   (Coincidentally, this is the same argument used by the new _Today_ show
   host Deborah Norville to halt a dialogue on outing with guest Gabriel
   Rotello of _OutWeek_.)

   Beyond privacy: gossip

   But just past the boundary of the cultural notion of "privacy" lies the
   construct know as "gossip." "Gossip" allows the press an ethical trap
   door that gives the public access to the information in which they are
   truly interested: the unseemly, unvarnished "truth." But even in this
   idea of "gossip" there is a standard blackout on any gay information.
   Speculation on Liz Taylor's love life is open season in any newspaper
   but speculation as to whom k.d.lang, John Travolta or Tracy Chapman may
   be dating is verboten.

   This point is forcefully illustrated recently on an episode of Joan
   Rivers' morning talk show that focuses on gossip columnists: all of the
   dirt was being dragged out -- the Trumps, the Helmslelys, Bess Myerson
   and most everyone in Hollywood. Suddenly Joan got very serious and said
   "But sometimes people go too far. That New York paper [OutWeek] is
   saying those terrible things about a certain man who has just died, I
   won't even say his name [Malcolm Forbes], and it just makes me sick."
   This from a woman who built her career recycling gossip and quizzing
   people on their personal lives.

   Of course, Joan's message is clean and familiar: being gay is bad, it is
   a dirty secret, and it should be kept quiet. Positive gay sexuality is
   _never_ a permissible topic in the mainstream media; not even as gossip.
   The irony of all of this, as pointed out by film critic Vito Russo in a
   recent letter to the _Village Voice_, is that the idea that someone's
   sexual activity is a private matter does not even apply to outing:
   "When we say someone is gay, we're talking about _sexual orientation_,
   not their sexual activity. It's not our fault that every time someone
   says _gay_, people think `sex.' That's _their_ twisted problem."

   As constructed by the press -- as well as the gossip network -- the very
   fact of homosexuality is a problem, something bad, something to be
   hidden. For years the mainstream press has hidden behind the argument
   that to mention someone's sexual orientation would constitute libel. The
   concept of libel is based on the premise that the statement in question
   is both untrue and intentionally malicious.  Recently, when Armistead
   Maupin has mentioned someone as being gay or lesbian, he always points
   out that this is not an attack but a compliment.  The eagerness of the
   press to hide behind the libel excuse only reinforces the overriding
   idea that there is never anything positive about being gay, and
   reinforces the blackout on open, positive gay visibility.

   It is important to acknowledge the absence of lesbian and gay visibility
   in any discussion of outing.  It is not just a lack of news coverage or
   a hesitancy to deal with gay issues, but rather a wholesale cultural
   attempt to conceal and lie about the existence of gay and lesbian people
   and culture.  Outing does not occur in a morally-, philosophically- or
   politicall-neutral vacuum, but in a world that continually teaches
   people to hate homosexuals and -- perhaps most importantly here-- to
   hide and obscure homosexuality; to deny it both context and validity.

   It is interesting that in all of the articles written about outing in
   the straight press, almost every one mentioned that "there is an
   unwritten law among homosexuals never to bring anyone out of the
   closet." (One wonders where these reporters from _Time_, _Newsweek_, and
   the _Wall Street Journal_ had access to unwritten homosexual laws, but
   never mind.)  And it is true that there has been a long standing
   agreement among lesbians and gay men to keep a certain degree of secrecy
   -- of protection -- about their own.

   When I was coming out in the mid-'60s, this was certainly an
   understanding that older lesbians and gay men imparted to me. But it is
   important to recognize that laws (written and unwritten) are socially
   constructed for a variety of reasons. It is also important to remember
   that this was not the only law. You were not to show affection in
   public. You were not to act too effeminate or too butch. You were not to
   be too obvious. You were not to talk about being gay. You were not to
   say anything against the straight world. You were not to complain about
   ill-treatment at the hands of hateful society. The list was endless.
   These were all unwritten laws and they existed for a very good reason,
   it was dangerous -- physically, emotionally and psychically -- to be
   known as a homosexual. It was called "living in the closet" and many
   times it devastated or killed people as much as if they had come out and
   been destroyed for it.

   Sarah Schulman, in an eloquent letter to the _Village Voice_, stated:
   "To call [outing] an invasion of privacy is distorting and dishonest.
   Most people stay in the closet .. because to do so is a prerequisite for
   employment. Having to hide the way you live because of fear of punishment
   isn't a `right,' not is it `privacy.' Being in the closet ... is
   maintained by force, not choice."

   Because of gay liberation, most of these unwritten laws -- a.k.a.
   repressions -- have been repealed.  Which is not to say that outing is
   fine or not without consequences but, the rules of 10, 20, 30, or 40
   years ago are no longer the same. Gay and lesbian liberation has moved
   us forward, and it is this progress we must continue to chart, not what
   has been left behind.

   So often it seems as though the discussion of outing in lesbian and gay
   social and political circles buys into the myths, mystifications and
   self-justifications that have been presented in the straight press.
   People don't seem to be addressing the complexities or the nuances of
   what outing is, or what it means in the context of movement, history and
   politics.

   And the politics of outing are complex. First of all, it is important to
   keep in mind that when we have spoken about outing we have actually been
   talking about a specific group of people. No one has ever suggested that
   grade school teachers, bus drivers, and sales clerks be outed. The
   discussion has always centered on public figures and then only those
   members of Congress and state governments who affect public policy -- as
   well as some celebrities who capture the public imagination. (This is
   especially true of celebrities. English actor Ian McKellan came out and
   no one would write about it, because there was no scandal involved.
   Comedian Judy "Sock-it-to-me" Carne came out in the _Advocate_ and no
   one cared.) It is important to keep in mind the social context here --
   hardly _anyone_ who is a public figure _ever_ comes out. For every Ian
   McKellan there are literally thousands of lesbians and gay men in the
   public eye who insist on not only hiding their homosexuality but
   inventing fake heterosexual lives to do so; joining -- in the words of
   Christopher Isherwood -- the ranks of the "heterosexual dictatorship."

   It is also important to make distinctions within this small group. Some
   activists are only interested in outing those gay and closeted officials
   who have actively voted against progressive gay or AIDS legislation.
   Thus, they would out the closeted Mark Hatfield for his abysmal voting
   record on the Helms Amendment limiting explicit gay-positive text and
   images in government funded safe sex information, as well as other
   legislation that would prohibit the use of federal funds for materials
   which would, "promote or encourage homosexuality." Such a tactic would
   not only bring the official "out" but would presumably hurt his standing
   with a possibly conservative constituency. This form of outing -- a
   clear, direct political strategy -- views those in the closet who work
   against lesbian and gay rights and AIDS legislation as collaborators and
   quislings who are to be punished. These activists would argue that such
   public officials were not being brought out as homosexuals but as
   hypocrites.

   The other "trend" in outing has as its aim to bring out _all_ public
   figures, including officials (regardless of their voting records) and
   celebrities. This is contrasted to the outing tactic that is set up to
   punish those who work against the community and instead concerns itself
   with lesbian and gay visibility. The motivation is the feeling that the
   more famous people there are who are "out," the more the press -- and
   the culture -- will have to deal with the existence, the very _fact_ of
   gayness. And while the "outers" don't overtly call these closeted women
   and men "traitors" they do view them, quite rightly, as contributing in
   a major way to gay and lesbian invisibility and thus to the detriment of
   the community and movement. In a sense this is the more radical
   approach, using outing not for specific political expediency but as a
   way of addressing the position of lesbians and gay men in the whole
   culture.

   It is interesting to note that for all of the uproar about outing there
   has been very little of it actually done. There have been demonstrations
   again Illinois's governor Thompson as well as Oregon's Sen. Hatfield,
   and while there have been rumors of threats against other anti-gay
   public officials, no action has been taken. As far as celebrities go,
   there has been almost no organized work done by lesbian and gay groups.
   It is true that the supermarket tabloids -- _National Enquirer_, _Star_
   and _Globe_ -- have all printed stories about Richard Chamberlain,
   Malcolm Forbes, Kristie McNichol, and John Travolta, but these have 
   usually been homophobic in slant and no different -- although probably
   more explicit -- that the expo-stories they have run for decades. It is
   not as though there is a shortage of closeted famous people but rather
   that, at this point in time, it is the establishment of outing as a
   social possibility that is important. This is why outing is occupying
   the public's imagination, and dominating so much discussion.

   The community responds
   
   The gay and lesbian community's response to outing has been varied, and
   to a large degree unreported.  Some specific objections have been made
   but these have not carried much weight in the straight press.

   But is has been argued by some, for example, that it is the very "right
   to privacy" that has allowed the lesbian and gay community many legal
   gains these past 20 years. But the fact is that most of the legal
   battles have been won by arguing First Amendment right of speech and
   assembly, or have focused on traditional civil rights arguments. It is
   ironic that the major gay rights case that focused on "privacy" --
   _Bowers v. Hardwick_, in which it was argued that Michael Hardwick had
   the right to have sex in the privacy of his own bedroom with whomever he
   chose -- was a failure. (Interestingly enough, feminist theorist
   Rosalind Petchesky argued recently in _The Nation_, that to succeed in
   the long run the reproductive rights movement will have to focus on the
   concept of "social rights" -- that you have a right to do something,
   like the right to vote -- rather than relying on the idea of "individual
   privacy.")

   Still others in the gay and lesbian community have claimed that outing
   anti-gay politicians smacks of blackmail. This is not, perhaps, an
   untrue argument but one which falls flat since most people realize that
   _all_ politics are fought with threats and blackmail of some sort. Even
   the argument that it is "morally wrong" to drag people out of the closet
   does not go very far in a lesbian and gay world where people are more
   interested -- and certainly more invested -- in attacking the morality
   of the FDA's drug release programs, or the morality of a health care
   system based on greed and not compassion.

   It is always difficult to gauge the response of the lesbian and gay
   community: there are so few venues for the varied expression of
   opinions, that all too often those with access to the press are taken as
   the spokespeople for the entire community. This, I think, is certainly
   the case when the straight press has constructed the debate about
   outing.

   Most of the lesbian and gay people quoted in mainstream press outing
   articles have been the directors or board members of prominent lesbian
   and gay organizations such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
   (NGLTF), Human Rights Campaign Fund, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and
   Mass. Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. These people are in a very
   delicate position as they attempt the difficult task of working for
   change within existing social structures. Acutely aware of their
   tactical dependency on those in power and their economic donor
   populations, they are forced to always take the most prudent,
   least-extreme position on any given debate. No matter what they might
   really think or feel about outing -- and their personal thoughts are as
   varied as their politics -- their public opinions reflect the more
   conservative end of the discussion. But by only quoting these "leaders"
   -- a phrase the press loves to use when it wants to invent/bolster
   support for its own agenda -- the straight press can give the impression
   that outing is generally abhorred by the entire lesbian and gay
   community. The fact is that the straight press does not know -- or more
   to the point, care -- what the gay and lesbian community thinks about
   anything.

   One of the results -- and probably one of the intentions -- of the
   straight coverage has been to politically and culturally isolate anyone
   who speaks in favor of outing. Specifically, in most cases, this has
   meant _OutWeek_ and its editors Gabriel Rotello and Michelangelo
   Signorile. By isolating such vocal proponents of outing as crazies or
   members of the lunatic fringe -- creating the dichotomy of the "good
   gays" vs. the "bad gays" -- the straight press can avoid examining not
   only the politics of the trend, but the real social conditions that have
   brought it to the forefront of political action.

   Outing is always treated in the mainstream press as a peculiar
   aberration of homosexual malice, a particularly vicious expression of
   nasty queendom. But the fact is that outing was born as a healthy
   response to an ever-increasing anger: anger at a government that
   continues to do little about AIDS; anger at a mindset that still
   belittles the very _idea_ of gayness; anger at a country that
   consistently condones violence against lesbians and gay men; anger at a
   culture that rewards people for staying in the closet and punishes
   others for coming out. There is also an insistent, ever-gnawing anger at
   all of the deaths that have happened and will continue to happen and
   happen and happen because of AIDS. For the straight press to acknowledge
   such immense anger, and the reasons for it, would be to indict itself.

   It is no accident that the current outing trend started in various ACT
   UP organizations throughout the country and in _OutWeek_, a magazine
   that -- in part -- emerged and overlapped with New York's ACT UP
   movement. The anger that mobilized ACT UP is the anger that infused the
   notion of outing, an anger born of rage and frustration, of wanting to
   change the world and knowing that part of that cannot be done within the
   system. SILENCE = DEATH applies to the politics of the closet as easily
   as it does to the AIDS epidemic.

   

   Going too far

   One of the most common charges against outing (and ACT UP) is that both
   "go too far"; that they cross some accepted social and political
   boundary. And it is true. The aggressive direct actions of ACT UP -- such
   as the raucous demo at New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral or the closing
   down of the Food and Drug Administration in Washington -- are a new form
   of AIDS activism, as is outing. These techniques have not been used
   before and, in a very real sense, they are frightening: frightening to
   the culture they are aimed at and frightening for the people who put
   themselves on the line to use them.

   But it is important to realize that the gay movement -- and any
   political movement -- has always had to continually "go too far" in
   order to get ahead. Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society went too far
   when they first organized. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin went too far when
   they published _The Ladder_. Frank Kameny and Barbara Gittings went too
   far when they picketed the federal government in 1963 to protest
   discrimination against homosexuals. And certainly the queens, drags,
   dykes and street queers on Christopher Street went too par when they
   declared open war on the police at the Stonewall Inn. "Going too far" is
   not only a political fact, it is a political necessity.

   One of the by-products of "going too far" is that it creates
   the political and social space for those not on the front lines to engage
   in more acceptable actions. The 75 executive directors of national gay
   and AIDS organizations (very few of whom had ever been involved in direct
   action before) who were arrested in front of the White House last year
   were able to do so because of the massive FDA protests a year earlier
   (which could only have come about with the evolution of the ACT UP
   movement.) Urvashi Vaid of the NGLTF was able to stand up and disrupt
   George Bush's insulting "AIDS speech" because of all of the more
   vehement ACT UP disruptions that came before. Lobbyists who are battling
   on Capitol Hill for comprehensive health care have more leeway because
   ACT UP's demonstrations have widened the parameters of what is possible.
   It is conceivable that the very concept of outing -- so startlingly new
   and provocative -- might actually create the social space for people
   (not just the famous and powerful) to think about coming out on their
   own. The power of outing had refocused the coming out discussion,
   switching it from a personal to a innately political decision.

   Although the politics of outing blossomed at the same time as ACT UP
   and _OutWeek_, it is a mistake to think that this is not just the tip of
   the iceberg; that the anger and the sentiment about outing is not a
   product of the more grassroots sentiments running deeper in the
   community.

   You see its manifestations everywhere. A few months ago at a k.d.lang
   concert at Boston's Opera House, several lesbians in the audience yelled
   to the performer between songs: "Why don't you just come out?" and "Come
   out, k.d.!" There was an encouragement and a resentment in these voices
   that would not have been heard so loudly and publicly two years ago.

   In a recent bar discussion, I heard one man ask another if he thought
   Greg Louganis was gay. His response was immediate: "Fuck him, who cares?
   He's so closeted."

   This is a startling change from years ago. I remember coming out in the
   pre-Stonewall, late-'60s, and exchanging with new-found friends the
   endless names of who-might-be-and-who-certainly-was-and-who-probably-was.
   It all felt like a secret society, a selective in-crowd of special
   people that we needed to know about because the fact was that we
   _didn't_ know about anyone. But it feels as though that is gone now.

   The security of secrecy has been replaced by an impatience and an anger
   at those who take refuge in privacy while the rest of us suffer the
   perils of being out of the closet. The anger is concentrated especially
   at those whose careers in show business would not really suffer if they
   came out, or those whose cults and reputations have been created by the
   lesbian and gay community, or those who are just not willing to take the
   chance -- as we did, and do -- to live more honestly. As Rita Mae Brown
   once said about not coming out: "I've heard all of the excuses, honey.
   And they're all shit."

   I suspect that if you spoke to a large number of lesbians and gay men --
   not media-appointed leaders -- you would actually find, if not
   widespread support for various forms of outing, a new anger and
   resentment at those who aren't out. If Stonewall taught us that we could
   be out and proud, perhaps AIDS has taught us that we can -- that we
   _have_ to -- be angry. There is a new understanding that the very
   existence of the closet hurts the whole community and while some of us
   might choose to respect personal decisions to stay closeted, others are
   not going to. People can choose to lie about themselves, but they cannot
   expect that others will always join them in those lies.

   The fighting and confusion over outing is a reflection of a tension that
   has always existed in the gay and lesbian liberation movement. While
   some have insisted that they just want to be accepted, like everyone
   else, other have demanded the freedom to be different. The first accepts
   social norms, the second challenges them. The Stonewall Riots made
   earlier gay politics obsolete and loudly and clearly stated that it was
   important not to hide, to "come out." The personal was the political, we
   said, and the ultimate goal -- the only way to effect true social change
   -- was to break down the dichotomy between private and public life. _To
   come out._ In a very real way outing is a direct result of this tension;
   an eruption of anger that the secrecy and enforced privacy of the '50s
   and '60s has not yet moved forward to deal with the more urgent,
   pressing, life-and-death politics of the present.

   But after all of the arguing, all of the qualms, all of the theorizing,
   it remains to be explained why outing has become such a huge issue for
   both the gay and the straight community. Like the mythical bra-burnings
   of early 1970s feminism, outing has become a sort of shared popular-
   cultural symbol of two antagonistic communities. The image of bra-
   burning, even today, represents both feminist rage and anger as well as
   the anti-feminist' fear of rebellion. So too, outing has become a potent
   symbol for both the gay and straight worlds. For lesbians and gay men
   it is the newest instance of "going too far," it refuses to accept the
   separation of the personal from the political, and it is an act of
   cathartic anger at a world that seems more and more intolerably
   homophobic.

   And for the straight world, outing represents a fearful loss of power
   because the straight world -- maybe even more than the gay world --
   knows the _power_ of the closet and the enormous possibilities of social
   control that the closet can wield. To break down the closet's walls --
   either by coming out or dragging people out -- destroys the power that
   now rests in straight society's hands. Outing is -- for straight people
   -- a direct, uncompromised, challenge to their insistence on controlling
   our lives.

 contrast: "AIDS is not a gay disease" with the consistent use of AIDS as
the excuse for outing or for gay anger. Interesting...

>And ACT UP groups around the country have targeted officials such
>   as Illinois Governor Jim Thompson and Republican Senator Mark Hatfield
>   of Oregon, whom they claim are closeted homosexuals with a history of
>   voting against gay rights and progressive AIDS legislation. ACT UP
>   members in Portland even altered a Hatfield campaign billboard to read:
>   "Hatfield, Closeted Gay: Living a Lie -- Voting to Oppress."

 Here it is in all its splendor; voting against gay rights legislation (or
apparently any gay supported legislation) OR against "progressive" AIDS
legislation is tantamount to "oppressing" gays, n'importe quoi. This is
EXACTLY the reservation I had about recognizing outing as a legitimate form
of self-defense for gays. Outing can be used as a bludgeon to beat up on any
closeted gay that doesn't go along with each and every piece of pro-gay 
legislation that comes down the pike. 

 Also contrast "And ACT UP groups around the country have targeted officials"
with  "ACT UP has remained neutral, stating that it has not decided what its 
stance is on outing." Just a small inconsistency, I guess.

 The Doctah

>>And ACT UP groups around the country have targeted officials such
>>   as Illinois Governor Jim Thompson and Republican Senator Mark Hatfield
>>   of Oregon, whom they claim are closeted homosexuals with a history of
>>   voting against gay rights and progressive AIDS legislation. ACT UP
>>   members in Portland even altered a Hatfield campaign billboard to read:
>>   "Hatfield, Closeted Gay: Living a Lie -- Voting to Oppress."
>
> Here it is in all its splendor; voting against gay rights legislation (or
>apparently any gay supported legislation) OR against "progressive" AIDS
>legislation is tantamount to "oppressing" gays, n'importe quoi. 

Then how do you explain our community's protection of Stewart McKinney 
(a closeted gay man who died of AIDS a few years ago) and our support 
of Republicans like Lowell Weiker?  Outing people because they 
"vote against us" is not a either/or situation; there is a lot of grey 
area, and outing must be determined in context.  The men mentioned in 
the paragraph above actively and viciously attacked us, they didn't 
just "vote against us."

The thing that I find dishonorable about your position, Mark, is that 
you argue for not taking responsibility for your politics, as if your 
politics should not be considered when forming friends and family.  
I'm sorry, but how you vote COUNTS.  Voting patterns in this country 
have supported legislation and administrations that have been 
responsible for what I would call attempted genecide, and the THEN I'm
supposed to take a closeted, firecely conservative, Republican gay man
into my arms?  When his votes helped to insure death for thousands of 
my brothers?  

Forget it.

You can't divorce yourself from your politics.  To quote a good line 
from "Total Recall": "You are what you do."  And voting is doing.

> Also contrast "And ACT UP groups around the country have targeted officials"
>with  "ACT UP has remained neutral, stating that it has not decided what its 
>stance is on outing." Just a small inconsistency, I guess.

I think that my source for "ACT UP does not have a position on outing" 
came from an article in the Globe a few weeks ago.  If you know 
anything about the way that ACT UP works, you would know that their 
satellite groups are semi-autonomous.  It could very well be that some 
satellite groups in cities around the nation are outing people and 
others are not.  It could be that between the time I keyed in my 
article and the time that Bronski wrote his, ACT UP came up with an 
"official stance."  (This topic is sooo new, and so fast moving.)
Just last week, a member of ACT UP New York--without the support of 
his group--held a press conference to out closeted legislators.  

And in Boston, someone outed Evelyn Murphy.

The main message that I hope people get from the article is that 
"outing" is big, it is complex, and the anger in the community is 
growing.  Rhetoric won't stop this.  This is a movement with a fierce 
historical context.


							--Gerry

I want to apologize up front for my note being inordinately long.  I was 
hoping that Mark's anonymous friend, and Mark's own excellent reply .116, 
would preclude my having to relinquish my read-only status.  Having some 
insight with both Gerry's and the anonymous noter's opinions, I have tried 
to write this in an objective manner with no malice to either of them.

Some people may think that Gerry is playing some kind of game here, but I 
don't.  His "hypothetical" noters in .21 are real people - Digital employees. 
They may be accountants or engineers, in your building or mine.  One of them 
fits with Gerry's standards of proper 'gay community' behavior, the other one 
does not.  That is not to say that either of them is 'right' or 'wrong' - 
they are just totally different people.

Gerry's principle objection appears to be the anonymous person's notes, 
since he admits that people do have the right to live their lives as they 
choose, as long as they don't hurt anyone.  And since this person voices 
his [I will assume until proven otherwise] sincere conservative opinions, 
which contradict with what Gerry thinks gay people are 'supposed' to say, 
Gerry appears to believe that this person's notes are justification for the 
'defense' of outing.  

'Trial by notesfiles' - what an interesting concept.  I remember in SOAPBOX 
a while back there was a note called "Are you what you write?"  It was 
enlightening to read how many people's notes personae differs from their 
true selves.

It really amazes me that no one has objected to the threat made in .113: "If 
we have to out you, we will."

Outing is a weapon - plain and simple.  Someone takes another person's 
right to free choice away, and imposes their own standards of righteousness.
'Coming out of the closet' should be a person's choice, done when they are 
ready.  It's not an easy thing to weigh the possible alientation of the 
family and friends you've known all your life.  I've heard a lot of very 
positive and heartwarming 'coming out' stories, and a lot of horror stories 
as well.  It is a gamble that each person has the *right* to decide what is 
best for *them* in *their* circumstances.

Everyone is different - with different histories, present situations and 
future goals.  What is "right" for Gerry Fisher is not necessarily "right" 
for Mr. Anonymous.  Gerry has every right to live his life as an open, 
totally 'out' gay man.  It takes a lot of guts to do that in today's society. 
I'm sure it wasn't an easy, painless process, but Gerry has chosen that 
avenue and is living his life in the way that's best for him.

But maybe Mr. Anonymous sees things differently in his world.  It's okay if 
Gerry doesn't think that's the healthy, 'best' way to live one's life (and 
maybe he's right), but I didn't hear Mr. Anonymous saying he was miserable.
And even if he is miserable, that's his choice too.

Ideally, it would be very nice if all gays, lesbians and bisexuals could be 
'out' everywhere.  And maybe someday when being gay is as socially acceptable 
as being Irish or Republican or Jewish, everyone will be.  But for now, 
there's still a lot of discrimination, prejudice, hatred and violence.  The 
fact of *passing* a law will not change society's attitudes or behaviors, 
it merely offers legal recourse to those who are brave enough to fight those
injustices in public.

Finally, I'd like to suggest to anyone who thinks that 'outing' a fellow 
Digital employee is within policies should read 6.24 in the P&P book:

"IN GENERAL, EMPLOYEES CAN ANTICIPATE THAT ACTIONS HARMFUL TO ANOTHER 
EMPLOYEE OR TO THE COMPANY ARE CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES OR 
POSSIBLE DISMISSAL.   ...  EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO RESPECT THE INDIVIDUAL 
RIGHTS AND PRIVACY OF OTHERS."  (caps theirs)

Lots of people have very private issues that they do not want broadcast to  
the entire world - whether it's a previous brush with the law, the use of an 
illegal substance, a drinking problem, an infidelity, a rape, an abortion, a 
chronic illness, or who they sleep with.  It is my interpretation of the 
policy that we all have the right to keep our 'private issues' private, or to 
tell those select people whom *we* choose to trust.

Peace,
Deb

    Deb- you claim that outing is intensely personal.
    
    Lord's article made a different point, I think; that the whole scene,
    the whole intense debate around outing (the practice) has blossomed
    into outing (the symbol) wherein the gay community itself is figuring
    that the damning closet is just not worth the price anymore, and anyone
    who stays in it hurts the rest.
    
    And that concept is much more vital to me, to understanding the
    fooforaw, than nit-picking over whether or not some particular noters
    do or don't understand or support or bless or violently oppose the gay
    community in its decision on how to proceed.  That community is going
    through a debate which will decide whether or not they finally smash
    through all the walls the straight society has erected around them,
    and making sure they have the blessing of noters is pathetically
    irrelevant.  That article framed the nature of the debate; thanks
    for entering it.
    
    DougO  

>Then how do you explain our community's protection of Stewart McKinney 
>(a closeted gay man who died of AIDS a few years ago) and our support 
>of Republicans like Lowell Weiker?

 I don't know who Stewart McKinney is. I do know about Lowell Weicker. Lowell
Weicker was perhaps the most liberal man in the republican party; that he was 
not outed is not especially surprising.

>The men mentioned in 
>the paragraph above actively and viciously attacked us, they didn't 
>just "vote against us."

 Could you please provide some examples? I personally do not consider a failure
to support a piece of legislation deemed to be necessary by a gay group as
constituting "active and vicious attack," especially without reading the 
legislation as written and as interpreted.

>The thing that I find dishonorable about your position, Mark, is that 
>you argue for not taking responsibility for your politics,

 False; I argue for no such thing. You obviously miscontrue my arguments. If you
need clarification, ask.

>and the THEN I'm
>supposed to take a closeted, firecely conservative, Republican gay man
>into my arms?

 Nope. Just leave him alone. Symmetrical to what you want from society.

>And in Boston, someone outed Evelyn Murphy.

 Perhaps solidifying gay support for her candidacy at the expense of making
the race unwinnable. 

>The main message that I hope people get from the article is that 
>"outing" is big, it is complex, and the anger in the community is 
>growing.  Rhetoric won't stop this.  This is a movement with a fierce 
>historical context.

 What I get from the article is that gays who choose to live their lives out
of the closet fiercely resent those who choose not to, and want to do something
about it. And if their pain can be lessened by causing others more pain, well
that's too bad because if the world was perfect there wouldn't be any pain
over this. I hear the resentment even in the voices of those who say that
gays have a right to privacy. "I did it, why can't they?"

 My friend wrote me to say that being gay was about 27th on the list of what
makes him him. Perhaps that is the difference between closeted and non-closeted
gays; those who place being gay higher up the scale of self-identification
are more likely to bother to come out. I'd venture to say that the more vocal
gays look upon being gay as being a bit higher up the list than 27th. There
are some noters who write about nothing but gay issues, for example. It's
a thought...

 The Doctah

 DougO-

 I get the sense that you feel that this is fundamentally a gay issue; that 
it is interference for non gays to make judgements about the treatment that
the gay community chooses to treat its members. I believe that it is 
fundamentally a people issue.

 If (say) the black community were to start a trend that invaded other black's
privacy, would it be a black problem? If some whites decided that other whites
did not deserve the right to privacy because it was expedient for them to 
disallow these other whites that right, would it be a white problem? 

 How gays choose to live their own lives is 100% their own issue. I don't 
believe that a subset of gays has the right to determine how ALL gays will
have to live their lives any more than I believe that a subset of white males 
has the right to decide how all other white males shall live (w/ respect to
rights to privacy, etc).

 To me, far from outing being a gay issue, it is an issue of the right to be
an individual.

 The Doctah

    Mark-
    
    > I get the sense that you feel that this is fundamentally a gay issue;
    > that it is interference for non gays to make judgements about the 
    > treatment that the gay community chooses to treat its members. 
    
    That is correct.  I am of this opinion.  
    
    > How gays choose to live their own lives is 100% their own issue. 
    
    Right.
    
    But lets draw a distinction here, one that I've noticed Gerry being
    careful to draw, that I haven't seen other people pick up on yet; this
    is a 'community' issue.  This is not about all gay people.  This is
    about all gay people, closeted or not, who choose to take advantage of
    the social aspects of the gay community.  Look at your own sentence
    above; you used the word 'members'.  That has implications, Mark.
                                                                 
    If this community of people make a decision that those who choose to
    join them will do it openly...that the sneaky back door, the
    furtiveness of the closeted lifestyle, will no longer be condoned,
    that people who BENEFIT from the culture are gonna start having to pay
    their dues at the front door...then I don't see that its my place to
    judge that community.  People who don't want to risk exposure may have
    to go without the benefit that OTHER PEOPLE'S RISKS have heretofore
    brought them, if the community decides so.
    
    > I don't believe that a subset of gays has the right to determine how 
    > ALL gays will have to live their lives any more than I believe that a 
    > subset of white males has the right to decide how all other white males 
    > shall live (w/ respect to rights to privacy, etc).
                                                                           
    I'm not in there; its not my place to judge.  Your opinion seems to be
    different.  But your analogies of black and white are way off the mark.
                                                                           
    Unless I've misunderstood Ger, and I'll accept his criticism when he
    offers it, you should be able to see that I don't think your objection
    here is accurate; this community is not deciding for ALL gays.  It is
    deciding the new groundrules for how the community will continue to
    function in the 90s, for those who choose to participate.  No one in
    the gay community 'owes' socialization to anyone else; and if they
    choose to withdraw their longstanding tacit support for the closeted
    people, thats their privilege.
    
    DougO

 re: DougO

 Oh- light dawns...

 I finally get the picture. I thought that we were talking about all gays, not 
just gays that are into the gay community. In other words, guys who pretend
they are straight but furtively sneak into the village, etc. Hey- I have no
problem with open gays not accepting closeted gays into their community circle.
I don't advocate forced socialization. If the gay community decides that in
order to play you have to declare yourself a player, I have no problem with that
(nor is it any of my business, since I am not interested in joining the 
community).

 Thanks for writing that. I was missing this vital concept.

 re: Greg?

>    FWIW, I also think that implying those who support outing do so because
>    it is politically expedient, trivializes the hundreds of lines worth of
>    discussion on the very real threat posed by some closeted politicians.

 Wait a minute; don't start painting with a broad brush and then go to a fine
one in a single sentence. "Outing" is not by definition confined to threatening
closeted politicians, so that argument doesn't work. If you are talking about
those in power that actively seek to harm homosexuals, I agree that outing
is perhaps a last-best resort for self-defense (and was the first in this
string to say so!) But out, especially as advocated in the series of articles,
is more generally a case of putting the welfare of the group ahead of the
individual rights of people that belong in the group without the individuals
in question having any say in the matter. I call that political expedience.
I don't think anyone would argue that it would be a good thing (in a political
sense) for every closeted gay to come out tomorrow. While it would throw
society for a loop initially, the ramifications are both clear and favorable.
Outing is a means to bring this about while ignoring individual's right to
privacy, and from a human standpoint, it is usually wrong IMO.

 The Doctah

    
    
    Mike, I don't know that in the time I have left (after the last note!)
    that I can give an adequate explanation -- but I'll try.  Please
    remember this is only my opinion.
    
    My guess is that people the person in question here is very much
    physically capable of performing sexual acts with another man.  Hell,
    straight men are capable of it, but simple aren't inclined to.  Also,
    my guess is that the person in question is NOT capable of an emotional
    relationship with another man.  I remember him mentioning his partner
    in the gay notes files and terms of "having sex" with him.  I don't
    ever remember him mentioning how he felt about his partner.  A scenario
    I like to have him respond to:  if his partner, because of illness or
    injury, would become incapable of sexual activity would the strength of
    the emotional bond be sufficient for the relationship to continue?  My
    guess, knowing what very little I know about the person other than his
    notes personna, is no.
    
    Simply put -- being gay is much, MUCH, more than just having sex with
    same-sex partners.  It's the ability to be passionately in love with
    them.  It's having the desire to spend the rest of your live with
    someone.  It's having the feeling in the pit of your stomach about
    someone that says you are not able to continue in your own life without
    them as a part of it.  People who simply have same-partner sex -- whose
    only goal is to have orgasms -- aren't, in my own vocabulary, gay. 
    They have not emotional stake in the "game of life" -- sorry for the
    cliche.
    
    	Greg

    
    
    ...also..
    
    The previous note points to the reason why many gay people do, indeed,
    prefer to be referred to as "gays" (or gaies as another infamous 'boxer
    writes -- I like it!) instead of "homosexuals".  It separates, at least
    to some degree the idea of "sex" from the reference to the person.
    Hell, I'm gay as a $3.00 bill -- and haven't had sex in almost 4 years,
    unless  you count self-indulgence (as my mother used to call it!).
    
    	Greg

    
    
    Great question!!!!!!!!!! (re .last)
    
    I don't know that I have "the" answer to that question, but they're
    are at least a couple of "facts" I'd need to know about the person
    to try to "decide" if they're gay or straight.
    
    Obviously, (I think) in my previous note I was playing with semantics.
    Of course, a person who has has sex with same sex partners is "gay"
    in the "dictionary"-sense of the word.  My point is that "being gay" is
    much more than have sex -- thus the desired use of the term "gay"
    instead of "homosexual".
    
    As to the person who has never fallen in love.  What would be the
    object of their desire?  Same sex or opposite sex.  I know of several
    people that, for whatever reason, have chosen to lead solitary lives --
    never even wanting to fall in love and seldom, if ever, engaging in
    sexual activity.  Some of these people are definitely still gay.  Some
    of these people are definitely still straight.
    
    	Greg

    
    
    I really don't like my last reply -- so I'm going to try again.
    
    In my own humble (that's debatable!) opinion, what determines a
    person's sexual orientation is the "object" of their desires.  (I stole
    that term, impersonal as it is, from a psych. book I've been reading
    lately.)  If that object is of the same sex as themselves, they're
    homosexual.  If that object is of the oppositive sex, they
    heterosexual.
    
    If, in addition, the person is interested in pursuring a loving,
    comitted relationship with emotional involvement (in addition to and
    more important than sexual involvement), then the person is "gay".
    That's only MY definition.  Other gay people maybe won't like it --
    I've p*ssed off some of them before, and probably will do so again.
    
    	

.0> Is 'outing' a good idea?

.0> Should only gays be allowed to 'out' someone without their motives being
.0> impugned?

I concluded my basenote with these two questions.
    
Much (most) of the discussion so far appears to have centered on the first.
         
Anybody care to tackle the second?
    
  Alan

    
    Hi Alan,
    
    I though note .69 by Ger addressed your second question.
    
    
    							Hank

    I would view outing someone as most inappropriate! Talk about
    potentially hurting someone!  If the person chooses not to be out
    fine, thats up to them, but someone else doing it (even a Gay),
    is, I think a most serious violation of faith, trust, and potentially
    very harmful to the person if they are not ready to be 'outed'.  I 
    sure would't want to be responsible for hurting someone that way.
    Jeff
    

    
    
    I (the author) have set .143 (I think it was) hidden.
    
    	Greg

    
Given that with all the justification you can muster someone is 
'outed' and they end up dead - by either their own hand, or others
(as the result of gay bashing)... Is that of any consequence to your 
justification?

Please don't ask for examples--I don't have them.  Please do not be 
presumptuous and tell me that it can't happen.

Perhaps you'll say "it has not happened yet"?  Do you wait until
someone is killed before you put up a stop sign at an busy intersection?

Peace,
Deb

    	All this back-stabbing, finger-pointing, in-fighting...  It makes
    	me glad (beyond obvious reasons of my orientation) that I am not
    	a member of this "brotherhood."
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    
>Given that with all the justification you can muster someone is 
>'outed' and they end up dead - by either their own hand, or others
>(as the result of gay bashing)... Is that of any consequence to your 
>justification?
>
>Please don't ask for examples--I don't have them.  Please do not be 
>presumptuous and tell me that it can't happen.
>
>Perhaps you'll say "it has not happened yet"?  Do you wait until
>someone is killed before you put up a stop sign at an busy intersection?

Interesting.  This is the same justification used for outing, 
protecting gay people.  It's just that the methods vary radically.


							--Gerry

    re. 160
    
        
>>    I'd like to ask those who oppose outing under any circumstances, what
>>    they would do in a hypothetical situation where Jesse Helms was a
>>    closet case.  Would you still maintain his right to privacy is more
>>    important than my right to fight back against a powerful politician who
>>    uses every opportunity to attack gay people?  Just wondering...
  
    (note for the more sensitive;  the word "You" is a general term
    in this note, not aimed at the author of any particular note)        
    
    When you start picking apart rights (a recent example is the Right
    to Free Speech vs. Burning a Flag), by saying, "It's okie here,
    but not here" then you open an entire new can o' worms.  While worms
    are great for those who thrive on such things, too many worms around
    will simply botch up the system (plus, make things a bit slippery
    on the streets). By stating that so and so's right to privacy is
    okie here, but not okie here (and of course, one may point out a
    few examples where this really IS the case), you undermine the entire
    right and viola! worms everywhere.
    
    So saying this, yes, even Jesse Helms right to privacy is important.
    I don't like the man, so I'm not supporter of his ideas.  I believe
    there are other ways to fight a battle without digging deep into
    cans of worms.  Besides, people who are hypocrits in one thing are
    just as often hypocrites in other things, and I'm certain the issue
    can be fought without violations of privacy.  (although I don't
    think it will.  The Nature of Man doesn't allow this.  When we fight,
    we fight dirty.  Look at campaigns.)
    
    ---kim

        
>>>    I'd like to ask those who oppose outing under any circumstances, what
>>>    they would do in a hypothetical situation where Jesse Helms was a
>>>    closet case.  Would you still maintain his right to privacy is more
>>>    important than my right to fight back against a powerful politician who
>>>    uses every opportunity to attack gay people?  Just wondering...
>  
>    When you start picking apart rights (a recent example is the Right
>    to Free Speech vs. Burning a Flag), by saying, "It's okie here,
>    but not here" then you open an entire new can o' worms.  


Let's out heterosexuals!!!   Yeah!   Out 'em.   Let's reveal all their 
wives and husbands, maybe even their _children_!

What?  What's that you say?  It's not the same?  Heterosexuality is not 
a private piece of information?   It's different?

Why don't heterosexuals have the same "right" to privacy that gay
folks do?  I mean, maybe we are already whittling away the right to
privacy by denying heterosexuals the closets that they deserve.  Why
should gay people be privileged in this respect? To equal things up,
maybe we should force heterosexuals into closets.  Or maybe we can
eliminate gay closets.  One or the other.  After all, we don't want to 
say "it's okie here, but not here," then you open up an entire new can 
o' worms.

But we do want to make things fair, equal 'em up.  Right?


							--Gerry

 If a homosexual found out Jesse Helms was gay, I would not have a problem
with them "outing" Jesse Helms. Jesse Helms is a moralist who says that gays
are immoral and uses legislation to prevent homosexuals from coming out by
making the price too high for many. It could be reasonably argued that self-
defense applies.

 As for Mike Dukakis, if I founf out he was gay and I thought it would keep
him from imposing his will on me, I might "out" him even though I am not gay.
Why? Because I consider his policies to be an attack on those who are gainfully
employed. Politics is a dirty business.

 I think any politician that has skeletons in his/her closet is a moron if they
don't open the closet and defuse the issue. That's the reason for the big
chorus of "I used to do drugs but now I'm reformed- I realize drugs are B-A-D"
that many Massachusetts politicians went through a few months back. They were
defusing the issue. Being a politician means exposing every minute detail of 
your life to scrutiny.

 I have seen the claims by the more radical of the gay community that anyone
who visits a gay bar deserves to be outed because they have made their 
homosexuality "public." Thus the gay "community" can decide that anyone who
comes into contact with them can be outed. I fully reject this line of 
reasoning. On the other hand, if this were the case, many more people would
stay firmly in the closet as opposed to entering the gay community. So any gay
who has homosexual contact has the "right" to declare that they had homosexual
contact with whomever it was, right? It's their right to speak the truth, 
isn't it? "I had sex with Evelyn Murphy." "I had sex with Barney Frank and we
did XXX." It's your right, isn't it, since you were involved? Can't you just
tell what YOU did and who you did it with? A homosexual 'kiss and tell' so to
speak. Isn't that ok? Or does your partner (be it a life partner or a night
partner) have the right to expect that you'll keep your mouth shut?

 It's a tough question.

 The Doctah

RE .158 Gerry and .159 h(erb?),

>    re .158
>
>    I don't understand what you are saying

Me neither.  (But I know Gerry didn't answer the question...)

RE .160 Greg,

>    do I feel guilty?
>    Of course I do....a little - maybe a lot.  It depends.  

Um Greg - We're talking about a person who's *dead* because of an action 
you (*hypothetically*) performed or encouraged.  And all you can say is 
"maybe"??

>    Anyway, my point is that while outing someone can cause them
>    harm, if the harm they are doing to gay people is worse, then I believe 
>    the outing is justified.   

You seem to be proposing 'an eye for an eye.'  So this should apply only to 
people who kill gay people?  In any event, I don't understand how dying or 
being killed could be *less harmful* than what "they are doing to gay people"?

*Who* decides what "harm they are doing to gay people"?  

>    Does this answer your question?

It certainly seems so...If I've mis-read your intentions, please feel free 
to correct me.

>    If so, here's mine: (from .140)
>    
>    I'd like to ask those who oppose outing under any circumstances, what

I am not one of those people.  I've learned over the years to avoid absolutes
like 'never' or 'always.'  I cannot declare that I would *never* condone
outing as a defense at any point in my lifetime. 

RE .164 The Doctah,

Another terrific note...I found myself nodding most of the way through it.  
Regarding your "kiss and tell" questions...That sort of thing goes on all 
the time with celebrities of both sexes and all orientations by people who 
want a fast buck, have no conscience, and/or have a need to satisfy their 
vindictive cravings.  Sad, but true.

Deb

    	The British libel/slander laws have referrence to "public interest"
    in the sense of real benefit to the population as opposed to curiosity.
    I think some of what I have heard of "outing" would be illegal there,
    and I agree with that.
    
    	A surgeon who was abusing drugs to the danger of his patients, an
    accountant with a history of fraud, a hypocritical politician
    (regardless of the issue), are clear cases of public interest. A shop
    assistant who is abusing drugs, a retired person with a history of
    fraud, even a hypocritical policeman would be more dubious cases.
    
    	I know several heterosexuals who would not like a list of their
    children published, and who would it benefit if it were?

    re: .167 (Mike Z.)
    
    The way the "48 Hours" piece reported it, the news media
    not only reported Sipple's act of heroism, but also reported
    that he was gay.  A friend of his said that the reporting
    of the latter piece of information was a terrible blow to
    him, sent him into a kind of depression, and, in the words
    of this friend, "He literally drank himself to death."
    
    Steve

    But he is better off now.....
    
    Better dead than red/d/e/r closeted?

 re: Greg

>These are people that encourage
>    an atmosphere of hate and disgust.  They are role models for the bigots
>    who actually do the killing. 

 1st sentence: perhaps.

 2nd sentence: moose dung

 re: herb

>    You have come across as an articulate conservative. I now hear you
>    saying that your political orientation is sufficiently primary that you
>    might out Mike (politics is a dirty business!) 
    
>    I understand how one might *feel* that way and how one might articulate
>    those feelings but I find it difficult to understand how one might
>    defend such a stand intellectually. 
>    Could you try for us, please, or retract the statement?

 You're learning. If it is acceptable to use an invasion of privacy such as
outing in "self-defense," then it can easily be argued that since self-defense 
does not only apply to gays, the use of outing in self-defense is a uniformly
acceptable behavior. Just holding us to a single standard, after all. :-)

 The Doctah

    Some people seem to be saying that the outer is responsible for
    the bad things that happen to the outed person.  Well what about
    the actual perpetrators of anti-gay violence: the gay-basher, the 
    employer who fires him, the family who rejects him?  And in turn the 
    anti-gay politicians and religious leaders and groups like Citizens 
    for Family First who affirm and reinforce these people.  If one of
    them is actually a closeted gay person who becomes outed, they are 
    dying by their own sword.  I am not in favor of outing, since I think
    it should happen when and if a person is ready. But I think that those who
    get angry about outing should get *at least* as angry at those who 
    create an environment in which it is unsafe to be out.  If they don't 
    then I would question whether they are really angry that the status
    quo is changing and that there is increased gay visibility that they 
    don't want to deal with.
    	Linda

>I don't think it
>    is unreasonable to question the sincerity of someone who claims to be
>    appalled at the prospect of a gay person loosing their right to privacy
>    when it hasn't been at all clear that same person has cared much about
>    gay people in the past.

 Then question it! Don't dance around it. Say it out loud- direct and to the
point.

 The Doctah

    Herb, not that I agree, but I did follow Mark's line of argument.
    He basically is arguing that because Dukakis (as the example in
    this case) follows politics that Mark perceives as threatening to
    him, then outing him to cause him difficulties is a legitimate tactic.
    I don't know if Mark finds Dukakis threatening for his position
    on furlowing murderers, or what, but Mark thinks he has grounds
    to be find Duke a threat.  That is his argument.
    
    DougO

RE .172  Greg,

I appreciate the emotion in your response, and I think I understand 
your position somewhat.  

FWIW, I didn't say that no one was ever "accepted with open arms" - I said 
I'd heard a lot of heartwarming coming-out stories, and a lot of horror 
stories.  I'm glad that the former has been your experience, and I wish 
everyone could say the same.

>    Deb, why do you think gay bashing is on the rise in this country?

I think there are lots of reasons, but one thing that really impressed me 
was from the "48 Hours" note:

	.171> "Gays and lesbians are easy targets, and there's no
	.171> one to say 'You can't do that to these people.'"

I don't have the answers to all your questions.  Part of it I think is a 
general apathy, an "it's not my problem" or "us/them" mentality.  I agree 
that people in power who endorse hate and/or incite violence are also part 
of the problem.

>    I would
>    *also* point to the likes of Helms, Dannemeyer, Sheldon, (and more
>    locally, Switzler, Parente, Locke, Sutton - and a few names right
>    here at DEC that I won't mention).  These are people that encourage
>    an atmosphere of hate and disgust.  They are role models for the bigots
>    who actually do the killing.  

Well I'm certainly not going to speculate on any DEC employees, and as I've 
said, I don't endorse "trial by notesfiles."   Regarding the names you 
mentioned... As long as powerful people - purveyors of hate, discrimination, 
intolerance - have considerable followings and/or keep getting re-elected, 
the atmosphere of "it's okay" will continue.

While we have laws that protect us from people *acting* upon their
prejudices (if we're strong enough to suffer all the sh*t we take for
standing up), we still have the first amendment to protect everyone's
right to free speech.

Laws, in and of themselves, won't stop prejudice or violence.  And
counterattacking with equal prejudice or violence won't solve anything
either (imo).

>    Now tell me if the cries come from the mouth of a closeted gay, who is
>    doing more harm to whom?

It doesn't matter whether the cries of hate come from Jesse Helms or John Doe 
the closet case...for better or worse, everyone has a right to state their 
opinions.  Only when they're drowned out by the voices of fairness, justice 
and humanity will we see a victory.  I believe that it was Winston Churchill
who said "Mr. Hitler, you do your worst, we will do our best".  Well, the
same applies here:  "Mr. Helms, Mr. John Doe_Closet, you do your worst, we will
do our best".

Cheers,
Deb

>    He basically is arguing that because Dukakis (as the example in
>    this case) follows politics that Mark perceives as threatening to
>    him, then outing him to cause him difficulties is a legitimate tactic.

 Actually, I was thinking out loud; but you have understood the essence of
that line of thought. If outing is an acceptable means of self-defense, then 
there really is no reason to limit its use to gays exposing other gays. If
it is considered to be a viable method of self-defense, then only a sense of
propriety would keep one from resorting to it if one was in a self-defense 
situation. And the question that this begs is "of what use is propriety in
a self-defense situation?" If someone is attacking you, you have the right to
respond in a manner to neutralize that attack. One who ponders the propriety
of answering the attack with a counterattack is quickly relieved of the burden
of determining propriety and is henceforward known as "the vanquished."

 And yet the issue of privacy continues to lurk in the background. Does a man
(or woman) have the right to keep private details of his life to himself?
"Kiss and tell" is routinely considered to be dishonorable, but what about
the right for someone who wishes to go public with their own life experiences?
Do they not have the right to say "I've done x with y"? Or do the wishes of
one who wishes to remain private supersede those of one who wishes to "tell
the world"?

 The more I think about this, the less it remains tied to gays and the more
it becomes a particular case of the more general questions about privacy. 
A number of fundamental issues remain unresolved in my mind. 

 The Doctah

>    I don't think .177(sic) needed to be any more direct than it was. 
>    
>    There's a saying; "If the shoe fits....."

 This is precisely the phenomenon I'd like to see disappear. Toss some mud, and
see what sticks. Instead of being coy, why don't you say (to a particular
person) "Hey- I don't think you're being up front with us. What is your real
reason to discuss this?" Or whatever. This aimed at nobody "some people in 
here..." stuff is for the birds. If you want to question someone's integrity,
at least have the integrity to do it up front instead of making nebulous
generalizations and hoping the right people will "wear the shoe."

 The Doctah

ps- Mail is also a good place to question someone's motives... But in any case,
at least be up front about it.

    For the record, I am not questioning people's motives for interest
    in this subject, just hoping they will think more about the other
    side of it: why is it so dangerous to be out in our society.
    Issues of privacy are of interest to everyone I would assume.
    I heard Barney Frank speak on outing Friday night and he said he
    is opposed to it on the grounds that it violates the right to privacy,
    it is bad politics for the gay community, and it is not really
    necessary anyway, since there are enough people coming out on their
    own.  However, he did still hold that it was appropriate in the
    case where a closeted person is "using gayness as a weapon" against
    others, in which case he said it is a case of hypocrisy that should
    be exposed.
    	Linda

re: .181
    
>   I don't see outing as an "eye-for-an-eye" - I see it as self defense
>   and in addition, somewhat as a public service.  Most people I know
>   would not want a two-faced hypocrite representing them in Congress
  
I've seen it all now.  I've been tempted (off and on) to jump in this fracas,
and have only narrowly prevented myself from doing so.  Until now.

To call, or even infer, that "outing" (in whatever form it takes) is "a public
service" is the last straw!

When I was a little kid, I sometimes heard from my mother:

Mom:	"Tony, SHAME on you for breaking Bobby's toy!"  To which:
Tony:	"I couldn't help it Mommy!  It isn't MY fault"

			-or-
Mom:	"Tony, you ABSOLUTELY may not (do this or that)!!"
Tony:	"Aw, Mom...ALL the kid's do that!"

We long ago (in childhood) discovered that we can avoid responsibility for our
actions by inferring it isn't our fault that (this or that) happened.  Or we
justify our desires/actions by associating with others who do the same.

Now, if I desire to do something not generally acceptable...and I SAY it is OK
or RIGHT, does that make it so?  If I manage to convince YOU that it's OK or 
RIGHT, does that make it so?  If I even manage to convince hundreds, or perhaps
thousands, using whatever means I devise, does even *that* make it OK or RIGHT?

Why now, having rationalized with yourself that "outing" is OK and even RIGHT,
and even having, perhaps, the support of many, do you presume to classify this
act in the interest of the public at large?  Does that further increase your 
anonymity?  Does in "the public interest" protect you even more from the
personal responsibility associated with the act?  Do you think that just 
because "all the other kids do it" give license?

>    Now, suppose in doing this, Frank's career was ruined and he committed
>    suicide?   Do I take the blame?

No, I doubt if you do.  Any more than those bar-keeps who give the drunk that
one last drink for the road and the drunk proceeds to run over my kid.

We all should assume responsibility for what WE do.  It's not always the other
guy's fault!

Tony    
    
    

    
    
    What about dropping a black youth in the middle of racist Charlestown? 
    Overcoming racism serves the good of all black people.  The black kid has
    every right to be there.  If he gets the sh*t kicked out of him, and
    dies, *maybe* you can feel a little guilty, but hey!  You're not
    responsible for racism in Charlestown!  *YOU* did not cause the people
    living there to hate black people.  You know better.  You know that is
    *should* be safe for him to walk the streets there.  I don't think that
    you did anything wrong.  I think that you are furthering the goals of
    all black people by taking such an action. Thanks for helping us black
    people out!
    
    

    RE: .188  When was it ever established that the entire town of
    Charlestown was racist ??? You seem to be painting with an
    extremely wide brush here.
    
    Paul C.

re .181 Greg,

Glad you liked the Churchill quote - It's a former Personal Name of one 
of my friends.

Also glad you don't advocate censorship or support violence.

I do however have this teensy problem with your 'outing = public service' 
comment.  (Okay, somewhat *more* than a teensy problem...)  Frankly, I 
can't believe that's what you consider "doing our best."

And I see little relevance in your nepotism analogy.  Maybe you know people 
who've been discriminated against, beaten and killed for hiring their 
brother-in-law, but I don't.

And thanks for being the only one who even partially answered the question 
I asked earlier, [something like] "If you 'out' someone and they die as a 
direct result of that 'outing,' do you feel any remorse?"  No one else has 
even come close.
    
Cheers,
Deb    

>Now, if I desire to do something not generally acceptable...and I SAY it is OK
>or RIGHT, does that make it so?  If I manage to convince YOU that it's OK or 
>RIGHT, does that make it so?  If I even manage to convince hundreds, or perhaps
>thousands, using whatever means I devise, does even *that* make it OK or RIGHT?
>
>Why now, having rationalized with yourself that "outing" is OK and even RIGHT,
>and even having, perhaps, the support of many, do you presume to classify this
>act in the interest of the public at large?  

Interesting.

Actually, I don't look at it as "right" or "wrong" as much as I look 
to see what kind of results my action produces.  If it produces 
results that I like, I will continue to do the action. 

So far, the actual cases of outing has revealed some serious 
hypocricy, has gotten a mud-slinging Repulican fired from Lee 
Atwater's troops (and gotten them to stop gay baiting in their press 
releases), and has produced a debate that reveals increasing 
empowerment in gay people to address the dynamics held in place that 
oppress us: ie, the closet.

So far, all this "suffering" of relatives, all the talk of suicides, 
all the talk of gay bashings are theory, not reality.  (Note that I am 
not saying that they are unlikely or impossible; I am simply saying 
that they have not played a part in outing cases to date.)

So far, from the perspective of gay people on the whole, I would say 
that the results of outing have been good, due to a lessening of the 
power of the closet.  As long as we use the tool wisely (pay attention 
to the ways in which people can get hurt), I would advocate continued 
use of this tool until real-life results tell us to shift course.

Whether it is globally "right" or "wrong" doesn't concern me that 
much.  Especially since discusssions like that strip outing from all 
possible contexts, and it is in the context that we find "truth," that 
we find out whether it works or doesn't work for whomever.


							--Ger

    
>    What about dropping a black youth in the middle of racist Charlestown? 
>    Overcoming racism serves the good of all black people.  The black kid has
>    every right to be there.  If he gets the sh*t kicked out of him, and
>    dies, *maybe* you can feel a little guilty, but hey!  You're not
>    responsible for racism in Charlestown!  *YOU* did not cause the people
>    living there to hate black people.  You know better.  You know that is
>    *should* be safe for him to walk the streets there.  I don't think that
>    you did anything wrong.  I think that you are furthering the goals of
>    all black people by taking such an action. Thanks for helping us black
>    people out!

Let's use an appropriate analogy, why don't we?

A columnist is a rabble rouser against legislative bills up for a vote
that have been proposed by and supported by the African American
community.  He has done this using extremely negative, stereotypical,
and attacking language against African Americans.  I organize a rally
and point out that this columnist is, himself, an African American,
and I point out he supports a racist organization based in
Charlestown.  I maintain that the paper should not renew his column.  

[Choose your beating/death...] The man either commits suicide or is
killed by people who decide that he should be beaten for his
hypocricy. 

Do I feel bad?  Yes.  Do I feel guilty?  No.  Do I feel responsible?  
Not that much.  I defended my community against a hypocritical attack.
I will sleep with a clear conscience, I will sleep in peace.

(With outing, no one is dropping anyone into a neighborhood they
aren't already a part of by their own choosing; the analogy doesn't
work.) 


							--Gerry    

    re: .192
    are you saying "so long as it suits my purpose, the end justifies the
    means"?
    
    tony

>    are you saying "so long as it suits my purpose, the end justifies the
>    means"?
    
No.  Because the means are ends, too.

>And thanks for being the only one who even partially answered the question 
>I asked earlier, [something like] "If you 'out' someone and they die as a 
>direct result of that 'outing,' do you feel any remorse?"  No one else has 
>even come close.
    
It depends.  If it is an outed hypocritical politician, I feel 
remorse, I recognize the amount of responsibility that I had in the 
event (a little bit), but I do not feel guilty and I do not feel 
responsible for what happened.  I did not beat anyone.  I did not 
contribute to the man's shattered self-esteem, or to any of the social 
systems that keep gay people in states of shattered self-esteems.  I 
did not put that gun to his head.  And, I did not ask him to attack 
gay people from a position of power.

If I outed, let's say, a movie star.  Then, for me (other gay people
may feel differently), I'm torn.  I feel a lot more responsibility
than in the previous case, and "future gains made by smashing the
closet" doesn't feel to me like a strong enough case for exposing
her/his sexual orientation.  I don't think that I would sleep with a
clear conscience, or that I would sleep in peace. 

Context is everyone.  If you contribute to someone's death, should you 
feel guilty or completely responsible?  When you are a soldier at war? 
When you kill someone who is attacking you with a knife?  When you 
want to take over the victims business or covet her husband?  When you 
make and market a defective tampon without knowing?  When you make and 
market a defective hatch-back knowing that the engine will explode on 
contact?  You need context for an accurate judgement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

While we are on hypothetical situations here, let's, for a moment take
a look at the Digital presentation that I codeveloped and
cofacilitated for years, called "Recognizing and Understanding the
Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Differences" (nicknamed, "Gay 101").   In
general, a lot of people consider the creation and success of this
workshop to be a "good thing."  Strate people learn about a
subculture, and they learn that they can affect an environment in ways
that might make it easier for closeted and open gay people to
participate more fully as members of the team here at work. 

One thing that isn't discussed, however, is that there is some risk in 
doing these presentations.  The presentations provide an awful lot of 
information about the lives and various life-styles of gay people.  So 
much, in fact, that an astute person can probably make more accurate 
guesses as to who around them is lesbian and gay.

For instance, let's say that a strate person (John Schmoe) learns in
the presentation that a pink triangle is a gay symbol (it is; Hitler
put this symbol on gay men after he shipped them off to the
concentration camps).  Then, let's say, John see's coworker Jane Doe
walking around Boston with a pink triangle button and figures out that
Jane is lesbian.  

At this point, you can choose your damage.  John could out Jane 
without realizing that this is a "bad" thing to do.  John could be a 
phobe and really want to out Jane anyway.  John could rally teammates 
against Jane.  John could spread the word about Jane, let's say, in 
the town in which they both live.  Jane could be revealed, get 
isolated in her job, if in NH she could lose her job without legal 
recourse, she could be gay bashed, or she could commit suicide.

I fully UNDERSTAND that the likelihood of this sequence of events is
pretty, pretty slim.  However, it could happen.  (Perhaps a more
likely scenario would be a Digital employee who tells a phobic friend
who then recognizes someone with a triangle pin; and then bashes
them.)  At the very least, we have gone into staffs to do
presentations in which there were closeted members of the staff in the
audience (some reacted behind-the-scenes with support, others were
appalled).  But, at the most, someone could end up dying because of
the mere presence of the 101s. 

So, you need to add context to figure out the level of responsibility 
one owns in regards to someone's death, especially when it involves so 
many systems and people.  Am I responsible for Jane Doe's suicide by 
bringing the 101 to her group: partially, yes.  I'm not shirking the 
idea that, without the 101 in the picture, that particular chain of 
events could not occur.  However, what degree of responsibility do I 
own?  Also, overall, do I still think that the 101s are doing "good" 
or "bad"?  And, if we stop all activities that could possibly end up 
in a person's death, what would that leave us with?  Picking at our 
zwieback and milk?  (If we do that, I hope y'all realize that none of 
us can drive the highways, sober or drunk.)  You try to be wise, you 
try to do good, you minimize the risk, and you carry on.  The 
designers of the 101 _knew_ that there were risks involved, but we 
made a judgement call that more good would be done than bad.

Another good example is made by an outing detractor: Deb
states--correctly--that 48 Hours makes the point that increased
visibilty has contributed to increased violence against us.  So are we
to close up our gay bars (or hide their entrances the way we did in
the fifties), get Scondras et al to go back into the closet, and get
us to stop running 101s because someone got killed due to an increased
visibility that all these parties certainly own partial responsibility
for?   I don't think so.  Yet, when it comes to outing, tangental
suicides and gay bashings take on a higher moral priority.  Why? 

Now, I understand that outing is more aggressive and confrontational 
than the 101 presentation.  The good that it is doing is less "clear 
cut" than the 101s.  However, several people in here have been 
relatively clear about some good that is coming from the instances of 
outing that have happened so far.  And I don't think that I've heard 
anyone say that they are _glad_ that closets exist and should be 
maintained at all costs.  Yet, a few of you are continually trying to 
paint outing soley in the case of a spurious suicide or gay-bashing 
death.  

If I've defended my community from a vicious attack and the outed 
person gets gay bashed, why should I feel more guilty than if someone 
gets gay bashed as a direct result of one of my 101 presentations?  I 
would say that the likelihood of both happening are close, especially 
considering the number of people I've presented the 101 to (hundreds) 
and the number of people I've outed (none; some debate 1).


							--Gerry

    
    RE: Gerry,
    
    No, you are not dropping them into a community that they are not
    already a part of.  
    
    What you *are* doing is announcing to the lions that there is a zebra
    grazing in the area.
    
    I think the analogy is quite appropriate.
    
    

    Thanks to Jeff Ford for posting the article on "outing" from Gay Community
    News (452.129-.132).  To those of you who weren't intimidated by
    its length, and were interested in how gays are attempting
    to place "outing" into perspective, the article did the subject
    justice.  I strongly recommend that anyone who is interested
    in this subject go back and read the complete article, if you
    haven't done so already.  
    
    For me, the most significant point made in the article was a quote
    from a letter to The Village Voice.  I'd like to say that it sums
    up my feelings on this issue precisely:
    
   >Sarah Schulman, in an eloquent letter to the _Village Voice_, stated:
   >"To call [outing] an invasion of privacy is distorting and dishonest.
   >Most people stay in the closet .. because to do so is a prerequisite for
   >employment. Having to hide the way you live because of fear of punishment
   >isn't a `right,' nor is it `privacy.' Being in the closet ... is
   >maintained by force, not choice."

    Richard

    re: .193
            
      If hypocracy is a capital crime then we are all in trouble.
    
    in general:
                 "Outing" is against the very foundation of the entire 
    "Gay awareness" issue. A persons sexual preference is no one's
    business, and irrelevant to their role in society. Period.  
    To use it as a weapon is hypocracy squared. Those that
    expouse hatred against gays/lesbians should be confronted, yes, but
    to use their sexual preference as the weapon is total hypocracy.
    Before I'm misquoted, I'll say it again: to confront, harrass, even 
    non-violently harm bigots is no problem, but to use their sexual
    preference cannot be defended.
                                                            M...
                                                            

    
>    What you *are* doing is announcing to the lions that there is a zebra
>    grazing in the area.
    
You are assuming that the gay people "did nothing wrong," when, in
fact, they were "leading the lions in raids of the zebra camps."  You
are assuming that all strate people will--in a fit of assumed
homophobia--automatically "eat up" an openly gay person. [Others] are
assuming that suicide is imminent.  You can base your life on what you 
imagine could happen to others, but I choose to base my life on the 
context of what is actually going on around me.

For more information as to the weak nature of your assumptions, see 
the last posting of mine in this string.


>      If hypocracy is a capital crime then we are all in trouble.

If the hypocracy involves the maintanence of a system that leads to 
decimated self-esteems, dual lives, wasted productivity, death through 
inadequate health care administration, death through the failure to 
address gay bashing, and other assorted goodies that some closeted 
politicians engage in, then, yes, hypocracy is a very, serious issue, 
indeed.

Context...

>                 "Outing" is against the very foundation of the entire 
>    "Gay awareness" issue. A persons sexual preference is no one's
>    business, and irrelevant to their role in society. Period.  

Unless you are gay, who are you to speak for "the very foundation of 
the entire 'gay awareness' issue."  I love the new experts we are 
seeing on this topic now that we are discussing the removal of 
heterosexual power in the context of the "closet."

If sexual orientation (many of us regard "preference" to be an 
insulting term) is no one's business, then why do heterosexuals flaunt 
their wedding rings, talk openly about their spouses, put pictures of 
the family in their office, continually try to flaunt their lifetyle 
through ads and television, and try to recruit others into their 
lifestyle by asking when they will get married?  (And, if "it's not 
the same thing" as gay sexual orientation, then simply as yourself 
"why not?" and what might need to happen to equal things out.)

As I suggested earlier, I will pay heed to heterosexual's cries of 
"Privacy!" on this issue on the day that they are willing to put 
themselves in the same closets that gay people are in.  If this 
privacy thing is such a precious right, then why aren't heterosexual's 
willing to claim this "right to be closeted" just as we gays are 
supposed to feel blessed by it?  Perhaps because heterosexuals don't 
mind that things are unequal and are unwilling to support anything 
that would undermine the inequality?   If you don't support outing, 
what else are you doing to smash the closet?  Do you really care 
about gay people and about privacy, or do you simply care about 
maintaining your own, comfortable, status quo, even at the expense of 
gay people oppressed by the closet?


							--Ger

    
    
    >>Before I'm misquoted, I'll say it again: to confront, harrass, even 
    >>non-violently harm bigots is no problem, but to use their sexual
    >>preference cannot be defended.
    
    	I think you're missing a key point here, M..., if the person
    acting hypocritically is a gay person and their hypocricy harms other
    gay people, using their sexual preference is the only way to cancel the
    hypocricy (IMO, obviously).
    
    	Greg

>>    >    What you *are* doing is announcing to the lions that there is a zebra
>>>    grazing in the area.
  
    
    In lots of retrospect and lots of thinking about the issue ("Why?
    It doesn't concern you, Kim.  You've got zero to gain or lose by
    it...") ---
    
    I'll conceed a point, reluctantly.  The zebra's who've been announced
    to the lions were calling attention to themselves anyway.  In other
    words, given the acceptable bounds of outing as has been outlined
    here (by Ger and others-- paraphrased "Being applicable to prove
    hypocrisy by perfectly reprehensible politicians and the like"),
    I'd say Yes, outing is not a terrible thing in that matter.
    
    I don't feel 100% comfy saying that, but I'm not sure of the best
    alternatives right now.  I think there ought to be some (actually,
    there shouldn't be this whole mess in the first place!), but damned
    if I could think of any.
    
    Outing, for any other reasons (ala LA Law) still comes across a
    cruel and appalling.
    
    
>>...    themselves in the same closets that gay people are in.  If this 
>>privacy thing is such a precious right, then why aren't heterosexual's 
>>willing to claim this "right to be closeted" just as we gays are 
>>supposed to feel blessed by it?  Perhaps because heterosexuals don't 
                   ^^^^^^^
    
    I dunno if anyone's suggested gays should feel blessed by that closet
    anymore than I'm not aware of anyone having mentioned that it's
    wonderful that's it there.  I think it's rotten there's a NEED (pick
    your own word) that homosexuals feel they'd best stay in a closet,
    but I will say that right now, right here, today and tomorrow, the
    close minded attitudes exist that makes the closet necessary for
    those who want it.  
    
    As for why don't heterosexuals stay in the closet.  Simple.  They
    don't have to.  Sad, but true.  Isn't that what people are trying
    to change?
    
    Overcoming prejudice isn't an easy thing. Prejudice is a dinosaur
    that hasn't died out yet.
    
    Briefly, on the issue of privacy vs. privacy, I will agree with
    the argument that most of us don't keep our sexual orientation private.
    I'm sure most of us don't even think about it, or we think we're
    being private, but yet, we're not.
    
    However, if an individual *decides*, for WHATEVER reason, to keep
    that factor of his or her life private, I don't think I, or anyone
    else, has the right to pluck it out onto the open.  That's why outing
    bothers/ed me.
    
    ---kim
    
    
    
    
    

I've been asked by a non-heterosexual, read-only friend to post this:

452.192> I would advocate continued use of this tool until real-life
452.192> results tell us to shift course.

452.192> Whether it is globally "right" or "wrong" doesn't concern me
452.192> that much.

Either "real-life" or "real-death" results?  You're right - until the
body count is finalized I wouldn't concern myself either...this is
only a natural human emotion.  No problem.

Have a nice day.

    re: .192
>Actually, I don't look at it as "right" or "wrong" as much as I look 
>to see what kind of results my action produces.  If it produces 
>results that I like, I will continue to do the action. 
>....
>So far, from the perspective of gay people on the whole, I would say 
>that the results of outing have been good, due to a lessening of the 
>power of the closet.  As long as we use the tool wisely (pay attention 
>to the ways in which people can get hurt), I would advocate continued 
>use of this tool until real-life results tell us to shift course.

    I have a hard time reconciling these two statements.  It sounds like
    you are saying "outing is wrong, if used wrongly.  But *I* (or *we*)
    will determine when it is wrong".  I wonder if you "will continue to do" 
    (it) to achieve your goal...what if your goal shifts?  What
    if you "choose" to hurt someone else?  Suppose you realize the POWER
    "outing" gives the "outer" over other people's lives?  Suppose YOU
    become aggressive and vindictive...and choose to "out" someone to
    achieve your own agenda?  
    
    Someone once said "Power corrupts"... 
    
    tony (who is just thinking out loud)

    .192
    
     This is nothing but a run of the mill Machiavellian principle. "I will
    decide whether to out anyone is in the best interest of the cause. I
    will decide whether their miniscule suffering is worthy of even my
    contempt- they must be sacrificed for the good of the cause. I am final
    arbiter over what happens with these other people's lives; they have
    foolishly exposed a very personal part of their lives to me and I will
    use this indiscretion however I see fit, however I feel it best helps
    the cause I am interested in. If they don't want to be cannon fodder,
    they should stay away from the gay community."
    
     Perhaps the solution to the "problem" of outing is for closeted gays
    and lesbians to arrange for persuading things to happen to the "outers." 
    After all, it is only self-defense to preempt the ruining of your life,
    right? If someone outs another and they know about you, then there's no
    reason to believe they might not out you. Could be over a card game
    gone awry, a triangle suddenly legless, whatever. You never know. Maybe
    a vigilante committee of closeted gays (the ones with something to
    lose) could influence the outers in such a manner as to discourage
    future outings. To provide results which change the inputs to Gerry's
    equation of "I look at the results, I don't care whether it's wrong or
    right."
    
     I see this as little more than people tittilated with a sudden
    realization that they hold power over others. And the potential for the
    abuse of that power...
    
     The Doctah
    

All I ask, folks, is to keep a few things in mind.  First, quoting 
anyone out of context can make someone look extremely bad and can 
distort the meaning of what has been said.  All I am asking is that 
people keep in mind everything I've said in this discussion 
(contradictions and all; I'm not perfect, and I'm still working out 
the details as to how I feel about this issue).  To focus on one 
sentence in isolation will misrepresent me.  Second, I have always 
been pretty clear that I only advocate outing in two instances: 
hypocritical power-brokers who are attacking the community, and openly 
mourning our community members.  By taking my quotes and applying them 
generally or to other applications, you are misrepresenting me.

Let's take another look at this:

>Actually, I don't look at it as "right" or "wrong" as much as I look 
>to see what kind of results my action produces.  

First of all, you need to realize that a suicide or a gay bashing is a 
"result" of my actions.  It isn't the _only_ result, but it can 
certainly be a result.  You folks are painting me as someone who is 
ignoring the fact that there is a risk of violence just so that I can 
further a gay-rights agenda.  This isn't true.  

To get at the heart of how I feel in reference to two different 
contexts, please re-read my note that describes the difference in my 
priorities and feelings RE violence when the out-ee is a hypocritical 
politician and when the out-ee is a celebrity.

What I object to--and have decided not to live my life by--is the 
notion that we can look at an action ("outing") and label it 
uncategorically as "wrong" or "right."  I say, "it depends."  That is 
the essence of what I mean by "I don't look at the issue as "right" or 
"wrong."  I most certainly do look at an actual instance of outing in 
terms of "right" or "wrong."  Because then the context gives me the 
full information that I need in order to place the action within my 
moral system.  Talking generally, the right/wrong application to 
outing is mental masturbation in comparisson to viewing an actual 
case in an actual context.

What I find most spurious and hypocritical about most of the replies 
in this string is the harsh judgement of tangental violence that might 
happen to a person as a side-effect of my outing them, and absolutely 
not judgement of closeted people who attack gay people from positions 
of power.  It is crystal clear to me--in my experience as a gay 
man--that the actions of a Jesse Helms can be tallied in body counts: 
people dead from the AIDS education that he blocked, teen suicides 
because the boy or girl thought that there was no hope for a "queer" 
as Jesse describes them, gays bashed on the street because the system 
of which Jesse is a big part implies that queers are expendable.  
Death and destruction.

And then you paint me as a big villain for outing someone like that if 
he or she is closeted?  Where was your concern when it was happening 
as a result of the closet case's attacks?  I'm still not convinced 
that you are REALLY concerned with gay bashings and suicides.  If you 
were, you wouldn't stand for hate speech from hypocrites.  I'm still 
convinced that--some suicides and gay bashings as possibilities--I am 
doing more to stop violence on a grand scheme by outing powerful 
hypocrites than you are doing by trying to prevent me from outing 
someone.  It's almost as if you are saying that the potential suicide 
or gay bashing of a powerful closet case is higher on your moral 
priority lists than the potential suicides and gay bashings that 
happen as a result of the closet-case's hate crimes?  As if it doesn't 
matter to you when it happens to "nobody's," only when it happens to 
the powerful and well connected.

You really, really need to ask yourself this question: Am I 
battling ruined lives, suicide, and gay bashing by taking an outing 
stance, or am I merely clinging to "privacy" to maintain a status quo 
that keeps me comfortable?  I say you are merely advocating for the 
maintenance of the status quo--a status quo that is ruining and 
killing far more people than outing every will.

...and I never, ever want to suggest that this is an easy decision to 
make.  It hasn't been for me.

>    [From Tony:]
>    What if you "choose" to hurt someone else?  

This is the typical heterosexual or closeted-gay response.  Our aim is 
not to hurt people.  Our aim is to protect ourselves from attack and 
mourn our family members with dignity, with a full understanding that 
outed people could (emphasis on the "could") get hurt.  It is not our 
fault that society is so homophobic that it could extract retribution. 
Please place the majority of blame on the parties mainly responsible 
for the violence, please: the gay bashers and homophobic society.

							--Gerry

re: .210

>You really, really need to ask yourself this question: Am I 
>battling ruined lives, suicide, and gay bashing by taking an outing 
>stance, or am I merely clinging to "privacy" to maintain a status quo 
>that keeps me comfortable?  I say you are merely advocating for the 
>maintenance of the status quo--a status quo that is ruining and 
>killing far more people than outing every will.

I am not battling "ruined lives..." nor am I battling gay bashing, any more
than I would desire to participate in either.  And I am not clinging to the
privacy issue to maintain any status quo.  However, I reverently and fervently
believe that the privilege of privacy in this particular aspect of life is
FUNDAMENTAL and ABSOLUTE.  And the fact that you may choose to violate
that privilege, for whatever reason, is repugnant to me.  

>>    [From Tony:]
>>    What if you "choose" to hurt someone else?  

>This is the typical heterosexual or closeted-gay response.  Our aim is 
>not to hurt people.  Our aim is to protect ourselves from attack and 
>mourn our family members with dignity, with a full understanding that 
>outed people could (emphasis on the "could") get hurt.  It is not our 
>fault that society is so homophobic that it could extract retribution. 
>Please place the majority of blame on the parties mainly responsible 
>for the violence, please: the gay bashers and homophobic society.

First of all...the "you" in my sentence, while directed to you as an
individual (since I was referencing your note) is particularly intended in 
a more global sense.  I intend to include in it ALL people who feel that they 
can rightly threaten or otherwise impose their will on others with the threat 
of exposure.  As soon as you (global) attach "rightness" to this form of 
manipulation of your (global) enemy, you also threaten ME.  

Now, I'd like to suggest a more constrained use of the label "homophobic" when
used in this string.  In looking up it's definition, I notice the following: 
"an unreasonable fear of homosexuals, or homosexuality".  

My opinion is that few of us "fear" either homosexuals or homosexuality.  I may
abhor the lifestyle, but I sure don't "fear" it or its devotees.

tony

I've thought careful before each use of "homophobia," and I stand by 
my use of the word in each case.



							--Gerry

re: .209, Mark
        
>     Perhaps the solution to the "problem" of outing is for closeted gays
>    and lesbians to arrange for persuading things to happen to the "outers." 
>    After all, it is only self-defense to preempt the ruining of your life,
>    right? If someone outs another and they know about you, then there's no
>    reason to believe they might not out you. Could be over a card game
>    gone awry, a triangle suddenly legless, whatever. You never know. Maybe
>    a vigilante committee of closeted gays (the ones with something to
>    lose) could influence the outers in such a manner as to discourage
>    future outings. To provide results which change the inputs to Gerry's
>    equation of "I look at the results, I don't care whether it's wrong or
>    right."
    
    This would be great! If closeted gays took that action, they would
    no longer be closeted.  They would be empowered to take control
    of their own lives, a very positive outcome of the concept
    of outing.  Remember, 99.9% of gays, closeted or otherwise, are
    not the target of outing, only those hypocritical gays with
    enough power to work against gay rights.  You yourself, Mark,
    have agreed this is the one instance where outing could be
    acceptable.    
    
    Richard

re: .211
    
>I am not battling "ruined lives..." nor am I battling gay bashing, any more
>than I would desire to participate in either.  And I am not clinging to the
>privacy issue to maintain any status quo.  However, I reverently and fervently
>believe that the privilege of privacy in this particular aspect of life is
>FUNDAMENTAL and ABSOLUTE.  And the fact that you may choose to violate
>that privilege, for whatever reason, is repugnant to me.  

    If you aren't gay, you have no basis for opinion about what's
    fundamental or absolute about being forced to stay in the closet.
    You're entitled to an opinion, but it has no basis in experience,
    and is therefore, in my opinion, worthless.  "Privilege" to
    stay in the closet?!  Give me a break.

>My opinion is that few of us "fear" either homosexuals or homosexuality.  I may
>abhor the lifestyle, but I sure don't "fear" it or its devotees.

    Interesting word, "abhor"...your use of it makes me doubt very
    seriously whether or not you can say you're not homophobic.
    Dictionary definitions are not absolute.  From my perspective,
    a gay one, people who use the word "abhor" or "disgust" in
    reference to the gay lifestyle (of which you apparently have
    little knowledge) are homophobic.
    
    Sincerely,
    Richard

>    This would be great! If closeted gays took that action, they would
>    no longer be closeted.
    
     You don't get it. You certainly wouldn't think it was great if you
    did. I'm not talking about "coming out." I'm talking about using
    persuasive techniques to change the "results" of outing. You know, the
    old "the ends justify the means" sort of stuff. Same old thing, just
    a different goal.
    
     The Doctah

    Politicians are certainly a special case. They have volunteered to
    appear before the public, and daily represent their attitudes and
    values in order to secure voter support. My sense of justice is deeply
    offended by the idea of a closeted politican securing votes by gay
    bashing. Certainly sexual orientation is a privacy issue!? The
    politician who decides to invade that privacy certainly deserves a
    response in kind, PARTICULARLY if he/she is in the tragicomedic
    position of being homosexual him/herself.
    
    IMHO - Hoyt

    oh Mark,
    I was just taking your unrealistic conjecturing and carrying
    through with it.  Closeted gays will never band together,
    to use "persuasive techniques" (verbal or otherwise), because if 
    they did, they'd be on the first step out of the closet.
    
    Richard

re .202 Gerry and .215 Richard,

It really bothers me that you guys are back to the 'If you aren't gay, 
your opinion is worthless' garbage.  Everyone's opinion has value (imo). 
If people are 'off base' from a gay perspective, presenting an accurate 
viewpoint in a nice manner will accomplish a lot more than telling people 
they're 'worthless.'  Sexual orientation isn't the only closet there is.

re .210  Gerry

Double standard alert:  If straight people's opinions on outing are of no 
value, how do you justify your statement on knowing exactly what "the 
typical heterosexual or closeted-gay response" is?  

Also could you please specify (succinctly) what group you're referring to 
when you say "our aim/our fault" etc.?   Maybe in the future you should 
either make this clear or speak only for yourself...

Thanks,
Deb

    Sorry Deb, I don't agree with your opinion on this.  Opinion
    based on lack of experience is valueless to me (is that better
    than "worthless?" ). It's like having an opinion on a book
    you haven't read, or a movie you haven't seen.  Everyone
    has a right to an opinion, but that doesn't mean I have
    to accept it if it's based on ignorance (i.e. lack of experience).  
    I've seen a lot of opinions here that have been confused with truth, 
    and the distinction needs to be made.
    
    It goes without saying that you don't have to agree with
    me, but I'll say it anyway.
    
    Sincerely,
    Richard

    re: Richard
    
>    Sorry Deb, I don't agree with your opinion on this.  Opinion
>    based on lack of experience is valueless to me (is that better
>    than "worthless?" ).
    
     OH, so the only "valuable" opinion on murder is that of a murder
    victim (or perhaps a murderer since the opinions of murder victims are
    rather reticent to describe the experience)? How can you have an
    opinion on something you haven't experienced? By engaging your brain,
    that's how. That may be too large a leap of faith for you, but it works
    for me.
    
     How do you feel about rape? How do you feel about assault? How do you
    feel about the police looking over your records? How do you feel about
    getting in a car accident? How do you feel about having people hate
    you? How do you feel about diving off a cliff?
    
     Do you really have to experience something to have a valuable opinion?
    Not really. It depends on the subject.
    
     The Doctah
    

    To the best of my knowledge, it was a heterosexual who initiated
    the topic.  The majority of opinion here has been against
    outing in any circumstance, so Herb, take comfort in
    that fact.
    
    The opinions expressed by the gay folk here have no
    value to those who wish to reject them.  Our opinions
    are based on experience, that's my point.  You can reject
    them, as is your right.  Some of the straight folk here
    have been very open to having their opinions changed
    based on listening to our experience.  It is to them that
    I wish to express thanks for listening.
    
    Sincerely,
    Richard

>    Certainly sexual orientation is a privacy issue!? 

It is said to be a privacy issue for gay people (I disagree, but I 
understand what is being said).  But it is clearly a public 
issue for heterosexual people (candidates for office parade their 
heterosexual families in front of the camera as often as possible).  

I'm not trying to justify "outing," in this reply.  I would only like
for people to recognize the double standard, the dynamics that go into
the double standard, and, if outing is unacceptable, then to look at
other ways in which we can eliminate this double standard so that gay
and heterosexual people can live in a more egalitarian mode. 

							--Gerry

    Re: .225
    
    > To the best of my knowledge, it was a heterosexual who initiated
    > the topic.  The majority of opinion here has been against
    
    Yes it was I, a heterosexual, who started the basenote.
    
      Alan   

    
    Mark, we're talking about what it's like being in the closet.
    I stand by my statement that anyone who has not been in
    the closet and and talks about the "privilege" to remain there 
    doesn't have a valuable opinion *for me* on the subject.
    
    If you want to talk about rape or murder or jumping off
    cliffs, start another topic.  Your "logic" escapes me.
    You claimed that valuable opinion depends on the subject, and we're
    in agreement on that one point.
        
    I don't appreciate your calling my statements silly, 
    and implying that my brain is not engaged.
    I don't like being called silly when I'm serious.
    
    Richard

>It really bothers me that you guys are back to the 'If you aren't gay, 
>your opinion is worthless' garbage.  

This is a misquote.  I'm not sure if I want to get into too many 
details, because I've decided to stop being such a monster-child in 
this note string, but I'll try to give you the reader's digest 
version:

I believe that every person comes at life from a unique "position." 
This position is determined by the sum of all of the person's life
experiences.  One of the ways in which a person can "broaden" her or 
his position is to avoid viewing everyone else's position only through 
their own limited viewpoint, and to try to empathize with the 
different position.  For example, I cannot know--from direct 
experience--what it is like to be an African American.  However, what 
I _can_ do is to increase my empathy for the African American position 
by spending time with African Americans, by genuinely "walking in 
their shoes" as much as possible, by reading about African American 
issues, and by trying on positions of African Americans as much as 
possible (as one would try on clothes; put it on, check it out, see 
how it feels, and shift to another position).  It ain't perfect, but 
it is the best way that humanity has got to connect with one another 
and to understand the diversity of humanity.

What does this have to do with me being a monster-child in the 
"outing" topic?  Well, here goes:

I have lived 18 years of my life as a self-labeled heterosexual.  I
was raised in a heterosexual family, have many "openly" heterosexual
coworkers and friends, and am literally bombarded with ("immersed in"
might be a good phrase) heterosexual culture on a daily basis (TV,
movies, books, conversation, and so forth).  In addition, I have lived
approximately 2 years of my life as a closeted gay man, and I spend a
significant amount of time with closeted gay people who range from a
little bit closeted to almost-totally closeted.  I have lived in the 
gay culture, participated to an enormous extent, read the literature, 
watched the movies, attended the events, run the workshops, attended 
the workshops, and so forth.

These are some of the things that go into my "position"--my unique 
viewpoint on life and on outing.

When I view the positions of most heterosexual people, I find just
about 0 experience with real gay people, extremely-limited experience
with gay topics (with the exception of mainstream TV or movies; Oy!)
and very little empathy with gay people.  In fact, it has been my 
experience with most heterosexual people that they prefer as little 
contact with gay people as possible.  And, if they _do_ accept contact 
with gay people, then there is a very strong undercurrent of "Just don't 
talk about it in any detail, okay???"  ("Privacy," right?)

What I see in this note string is a lot of people with extremely 
limited experience with gay people, gay culture, and gay history, 
speaking very authoritatively about a brand new phenomena that the gay 
community (the experienced ones) hasn't had a chance to process yet.  
When I say "authoritatively," I mean that they seem very clear as to 
the "rightness" and "wrongness" of outing.  What I am saying to them 
is that their positions alone don't allow them the data that they need 
to make an "informed" decision about this topic; my contention is that 
if people approach this from simply a feminist or a heterosexual 
perspective or position, that technique will not be as effective as if 
data from the gay community itself were factored in.  

And, in general, have heterosexuals tried to "walk in our shoes" or to
come to us to gather data about this topic?  No.  They knew
instantaneously whether the use of outing was "right" or "wrong." 

I had a very interesting experience RE this discussion offline.  
Someone came to me in the MAIL as tried to engage me in a "outing is a 
violation of privacy" discussion.  I have generally refused to talk 
about this topic in MAIL, prefering to spend my time doing it in 
Notes.  So, I was pretty abrupt with this person.  I said, "Until you 
stop coming at this topic purely from a feminist/heterosexual 
perspective, I refuse to go forward with this dialogue.  Re-read all 
of my notes in the outing string, and re-read the GCN article.  If you 
can then paraphrase my position on outing and my position that sexual 
orientation is not private information (not necessarily "agree," 
simply understand by paraphrasing), then we'll talk."

I expected this person to blow off my challenge; I wasn't exactly nice
to her.  But, she _did_ go back and read the notes, and she _did_
accurately paraphrase my position.  In response, I have made a
commitment to send her back a note with information that she
requested. 

So, I really, really wonder why I should expend the energy to be nice 
in this notes string (besides saving myself from an ulcer!), since 
most people who are arguing against me continually show great 
inaccuracy in the way that they paraphrase my position.  It really 
stinks to take part in a discussion in which 1) The direct experience 
was not deemed all that necessary for heterosexuals to make an 
informed decision, and 2) I'm not being heard.  And the reason why I'm 
not being heard is because most heterosexuals and closeted gay people 
are filtering my words through their agenda, through their unique 
position; they are _not_ genuinely trying to walk in my shoes and to 
understand what I am saying.  (And I am very clear that 
"understanding" does not mean "agreeing with.")

The only person who I've seen accurately paraphrase what I have been 
saying is Doug Olson.  Mark Levesque has also shown that he has 
understood good portions of my position.  Pretty much the rest of you 
folks continually misquote and misparaphrase me.  You are blinded by 
being stuck solely in your position.  You aren't hearing me.  Why 
should I be nice to you?  I need to feel as if trust and understanding 
with go both ways, especially since what is being discussed directly 
involves my community and my life; it directly involves gays, and, in 
general, gays aren't being asked about outing; heterosexuals already 
know it all.

So, the opinions of heterosexuals RE outing are not "invalid."  They 
are simply limited by lack of experience in topics that greatly affect 
outing.  In addition, I am still of the opinion that a community 
should have the right to choose how its members behave within that 
community; heterosexuals can discuss the issue as much as they 
want--and gay people can learn from their feedback, but heterosexuals 
don't get a vote.  As long as that's clear, let the discussion 
continue.  

>Double standard alert:  If straight people's opinions on outing are of no 
>value, how do you justify your statement on knowing exactly what "the 
>typical heterosexual or closeted-gay response" is?  

I have direct experience with heterosexuals, heterosexual culture, and 
heterosexual responses to gay issues.  I have been closeted at one 
time, and I have direct experience with closeted people.  At this 
time, I could never speak "as a heterosexual" or "as a closeted gay 
man."  However, I can speak to my experiences with those people.

>Also could you please specify (succinctly) what group you're referring to 
>when you say "our aim/our fault" etc.?   Maybe in the future you should 
>either make this clear or speak only for yourself...

Sure.  At the time of writing it, I probably meant, "The people who 
advocate outing."  I was indeed speaking for people for whom I cannot 
speak.  What I should have said was, "The aim of the people I know who 
advocate outing is...."

You are correct.  I will try to keep to "I" sentences and speak for 
myself.  In re-reading .210, though, I was very proud of the way I 
spoke for myself for 90% of the note.  I did slip up in the last 
paragraph.  I'll try to do better.


							--Gerry

>    In my opinion it is very rude to talk about something and
>    then invalidate the comments of 90% (say) of the audience.

It's very rude to authoritatively tell another community what is right 
or wrong with extremely limited experience or empathy with that 
community.

It's perfectly fine that MENNOTES folks talk about this issue.  But 
you don't get a "vote" in outing unless you are a member of the 
community--closeted or uncloseted.  Don't tell me what's right or 
wrong for me or for my community, okay?  [Resounding answer: "No!"]


							--Ger    

>    Mark, we're talking about what it's like being in the closet.
    
     That is indeed part of the discussion, but certainly not all of it.
    
>    I stand by my statement that anyone who has not been in
>    the closet and and talks about the "privilege" to remain there 
>    doesn't have a valuable opinion *for me* on the subject.
    
     I have not talked about a "privilege" of remaining in the closet. That
    would mean that the person who was in the closet was allowed to be in
    by another group or force that could arbitrarily revoke the privilege
    at whim. On the contrary, I have talked about the RIGHT to remain in
    the closet. I have talked about choices and rights- and decried the
    concept of privacy being a privilege.
    
>    Your "logic" escapes me.
 
     What I was referring to was your reductionism that stated that the
    only way to have a valuable opinion was through direct experience. I
    countered that line of reasoning with a few obvious though extreme
    counterexamples which disproved your generalization. That was the
    logic; disproving a rule through the use of counterexamples which
    contradicted the maxim posed.
    
>    I don't appreciate your calling my statements silly, 
>    and implying that my brain is not engaged.
    
    Richard, reductio in absurdium (apologies for the spelling, I never
    took latin) is a phenomena that occurs when people attempt to make an
    easy rule to fit a complex situation. This is what you did. It occurs
    when one fails to take in proper account all of the possibilities when
    making such a rule. What I was telling you was to stop and think about
    what you said, especially in light of the counterexamples.
    
     The Doctah

re Gerry, Richard and Greg,

I still have a problem with the 'only gays get to vote on the outing issue' 
stance...Are only women be allowed to vote on abortion issues?  Are only 
PWAs be allowed to vote on AIDS issues?  Etc...

The discussions, votes and any resulting legislation or action, affect more 
than just the 'target' group - and, they set precedents which can then be 
used by other groups of people.

True, people who are 100% straight do not have any first-hand experience of 
what it's like to be a closeted g/l/b person.  But maybe they have talked 
with people or read accounts by people who are.  

I also think it's a type of discrimination:  If you  perceive me to be X, you 
don't value my opinion and you don't let me vote; if I prove to you that I'm 
a Y like you then you will. I just can't buy into this type of 'black  vs. 
white' view of the world.  And frankly, since I don't consider you to be any 
better than me (nor any worse!), I don't have to prove anything to you.  I 
just don't see how the patronizing, unfriendly attitude as reflected in some 
of your words will help foster an atmosphere of mutual understanding between 
g/l/b and non-g/l/b people.  Or maybe that's not one of your goals.

If you want to try to rate people on different perceived levels of 'expertise' 
on the issues, that's fine.  But ordering people to "stay out of the voting 
booth" is like saying 'You're my enemy until you prove otherwise.'  I prefer 
the reverse.

Cheers,
Deb

P.S.  RE Herb - What Peter questioned in his .233 (?) was your stating 
      "gay-ONLY conferences" (emphasis mine).  He is correct in saying 
      there is "no such animal," and it should *not* be assumed that all 
      members of the conferences you listed in .239 and .240 are gay.

Re: .236

>Also could you please specify (succinctly) what group you're referring to 
>when you say "our aim/our fault" etc.?   Maybe in the future you should 
>either make this clear or speak only for yourself...

Gerry, if you think 145 lines is succinct, I'd hate like hell to read
what you consider a *lengthy* response. :-)

  Alan

    re .244  Greg,

    Wow - What an eloquent account of your personal experiences.

>   and feedback (pro or con).  It is only thru such discussion that
>   we can ever hope to eradicate the bigotry and ignorance that
>   maintain the walls of the closet and keep people living in fear.

    Beautiful - Thanks.

    deb  8-}

>I still have a problem with the 'only gays get to vote on the outing issue' 
>stance...Are only women be allowed to vote on abortion issues?  Are only 
>PWAs be allowed to vote on AIDS issues?  Etc...
>
>The discussions, votes and any resulting legislation or action, affect more 
>than just the 'target' group - and, they set precedents which can then be 
>used by other groups of people.

In my opinion, only women should be allowed to vote on abortion 
issues.

As for the AIDS comparrison, AIDS requires education and government
funding.  In other words, AIDS directly involves (the word "directly"
is key; everything affects everything else indirectly)  far more than
the initial communities affected by the disease.  Outing costs the
government no money, and does not have a direct effect on people
outside of the gay community. 

As for the "other groups can use it" argument, I don't believe in the 
domino theory.  Let other groups be self-empowered to decide if or how 
to apply outing to their groups.  Let's deal with that new context 
when it is established, and I hope to god that we will give the next 
community more credit than gay people have been given for the ability 
to take care of internal affairs.

A more accurate comparrison would be if the African American community 
came up with some plan to combat gang violence in Dorchester and 
Roxbury.  Let's say it was a plan drawn up by the neighbors and 
implemented by them.  Let's say, it involved neighborhood patrols.  
The tactics would be aggressive, but not illegal.  Then, let's say, Mayor 
Flynn mounts a campaign--without meeting with community leaders--to get 
the neighborhood groups to stop what they are doing, because, after
all, they are wrong and the police have the best answer for gang
violence.  Meanwhile, gang violence rages on in their neighborhoods. I
don't think that Mayor Flynn can effectively address the problem until
he includes the community leaders, speaks to them, broadens their
empathy, and empowers the community to take care of themselves as well
as providing police support. 

With the outing discussion--here and in the national media--there were
little to no attempts to meet with community members or leaders. 
There were little to no attempts to broaden empathy.  There is no
indication that most heterosexuals are interested in empowering the
gay community to take care of itself with support (or coalition) from
the heterosexual communities.  No, heterosexuals knew immediately that
outing was uncategorically wrong and felt completely free in pushing
their opinions onto us (as if we were to implement their opinions as
gay policy).  It wasn't, "From what I can see, outing is an invasion 
of privacy, but then I don't have a lot of experience with gay people.  
Is there something I'm not seeing?"  It was, "Of course outing is an 
invasion of privacy.  It's wrong and shouldn't be done.  How can you 
argue otherwise?"  

I say that that is arrogant.  I don't want heterosexuals to "go away" 
on this issue, but I most certainly want them to "back off."  They are 
pushing in an area in which they have very little knowledge and 
empathy.  There is significant Valuing Differences work that they need 
to do before I will feel as if we are working in coalition and empathy 
instead of in an oppressive power dynamic.

>I also think it's a type of discrimination:  If you  perceive me to be X, you 
>don't value my opinion and you don't let me vote; 

No one ever said anything about not valuing an opinion.  This is about 
"community," not valuing outside opinions.  This is like people from 
Connecticut telling Massachusetts that their Law A stinks.  "Thank you for 
your feedback, Connecticut, but you don't get to vote in this state."  
And the state's actions most certainly have an indirect effect on the 
surrounding states.

>I just can't buy into this type of 'black  vs. 
>white' view of the world.  And frankly, since I don't consider you to be any 
>better than me (nor any worse!), I don't have to prove anything to you.  

You certainly do if you want to enter into a healthy relationship with 
me, one that is mutually respective and empowering and not ruled by 
power imbalances ("You're wrong!  Do it _my_ way.").  If you don't 
prove to me that the relationship will include empathy, understanding, 
and mutual support, then...well..."Thanks for your feedback.  Catch 
you later!"  The relationship won't happen; one-sided relationships 
don't work.

>I just don't see how the patronizing, unfriendly attitude as reflected in some 
>of your words will help foster an atmosphere of mutual understanding between 
>g/l/b and non-g/l/b people.  Or maybe that's not one of your goals.

I actually see it more as self-defense.  I don't see this as an 
appropriate place (the "outing" note) to do gay educational work.  
Also, mutual understanding doesn't happen unless people are genuine 
with one another, unless we are very honest about how we feel.  I think 
that the most important educational aspect of this note is for 
heterosexual people to view the anger that some (not all) gay people 
feel over this issue.  Perhaps the anger could be justified???  Check 
it out.  Here's your chance to do some empathizing, here.

If we are going to have any relationship worth a darn with 
heterosexual folks, I need to show them who I am and not put on a 
"Thank you sir, may I have another?" face when I'm actually feeling 
angry, insulted, pushed on, and devalued.

>If you want to try to rate people on different perceived levels of 'expertise' 
>on the issues, that's fine.  But ordering people to "stay out of the voting 
>booth" is like saying 'You're my enemy until you prove otherwise.'  I prefer 
>the reverse.

May I point out that Massachusetts and Connecticut are not enemies.  
However, although we cross our borders and share some common culture, 
Connecticut residents cannot vote in Massachusetts.  I'm not making 
heterosexuals into enemies; I'm simply stating that they cannot vote 
unless it affects them directly.  

Makes sense to me.


							--Gerry

    Gerry, not to take a chink out of your argument, but if
    the government is going to provide medical assistance to
    women who cannot afford abortions (a goverment program
    I support), and men are expected to contribute to the
    program with their taxes, then yes, men have a vote
    on the abortion issue. I just wish more men would
    support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion if
    she desires.  What I *think* you mean is that only women 
    have the right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, 
    and men should not tell them whether it's right or not.  It gets 
    sticky when money and government support enter the picture.
    
    The analogy for this discussion would be that only gays should make 
    the decision when outing is acceptable, and heterosexuals,
    while perfectly able to place a value judgement on it,
    don't really have the right to place their values
    on the actions of the gay community (well, they
    even have the right to place their values on us, but we
    don't have to accept their values).  That may not
    sit well with some people, but that's how I see it.
    
    What I'd like the heterosexual community
    to say is "If some gays think outing is an acceptable
    way, *in very specific instances*, to advance gay rights, then 
    let the gay community decide when to use it."  
    
    Regards,
    Richard

    I'm glad to see that the discussion is moving away from a shouting
    match. I'm sorry to have contributed to it.

    I'd like to see an end to the "opinion" rathole. All anyone can
    do is place this topic in perspective based on their experience.
    If we have different opinions based on different sets of experience,
    so be it.  Some people have tried to relate their experiences
    to those of gays, and that's been gratifying to hear.

    re: .242:

    Mark, someone else used the word "privilege" in relation to
    remaining in the closet.  I stated my objections to that.
    The concept of "choice" versus "right" to remain in the closet
    is indeed a difficult one.  I stated that we don't have a
    real choice whether or not to stay in the closet based on a repressive
    societal view of homosexuality.  I've re-thought that, and have
    decided that although we do indeed have a choice, it's just not
    as easy to make as other decisions to remain private.  

    I don't like generalizations any more than you. I understood
    the logic you tied to use, and I didn't agree with the examples,
    which you admit were extreme.  I can sympathize with a rape
    victim, or to use Deb's example, a woman who has to face the
    choice of whether or not to have an abortion, but I can
    never really *know* what it's like until I've experienced
    the same.  Unless you would like to admit to having homosexual
    feelings and heretofore have never admitted them, I don't
    think you can ever know what it's like to be closeted.  You
    can sympathize, and relate the experience to something
    similar in your life, but you can't really *know*.  I can
    listen to your opinion, and depending on how sincere I think
    you empathize, I can accept or reject it.

    I appreciate your attempts at understanding and explaining
    your position.

    Regards,
    Richard

>    Unless you would like to admit to having homosexual
>    feelings and heretofore have never admitted them, I don't
>    think you can ever know what it's like to be closeted.  You
>    can sympathize, and relate the experience to something
>    similar in your life, but you can't really *know*. 
    
     This is a subject where I don't think you have to know firsthand how
    it feels to be closeted to understand the dynamics of what is happening.
    The very fact that people are closeted is compelling to me. When
    someone goes through the effort and heartbreak to stay in the closet
    about their sexuality, I know that it is imporant to them to retain
    their right to privacy. Since they value that right, I cannot accept
    another's argument that it is ok to invade that privacy except in
    extreme cases where self-defense is a self-evident reason to explain
    the outing. To me, mere distaste of someone is insufficient reason to
    justify an outing. In order to accept an outing, I would have to be
    convinced that a serious conflict existed and all other possible
    methods of resolving the dispute had been exhausted. 
    
     The Doctah
    

>I say that that is arrogant.  I don't want heterosexuals to "go away" 
>on this issue, but I most certainly want them to "back off."  They are 
>pushing in an area in which they have very little knowledge and 
>empathy.  There is significant Valuing Differences work that they need 
>to do before I will feel as if we are working in coalition and empathy 
>instead of in an oppressive power dynamic.

     The difference that exists is that people like me feel that outing is
    an issue that while tied to the gay community, transcends the simple
    issue of sexual orientation. I feel it is a people issue; nothing more,
    nothing less. You feel it is a gay issue. Obviously, from your
    perspective, anything less than approval or at least tolerance is
    unacceptable and an encroachment on the gay community. Since I believe
    that outing transcends sexual orientation, not only am I allowed to
    speak authoritatively as to what my opinions are, I am almost required
    to since the closeted gay community can't very well stand up for
    themselves without giving themselves away (and thus defeating the
    purpose of the discussion).
    
     Since this issue is tied to gayness, I really have little personal
    stake in the matter from the perspective that I'd have to worry about
    it happening to me. However, my stake in the matter is the issue of
    precedence, and the issue of the treatment of one group by another. I
    think the loss of privacy is a very dangerous and quasi-Orwellian thing.
    I also detest the browbeating of one group by another. 
    
     The Doctah
    

    Mark, as I said, it's very gratifying to hear that people
    such as yourself are trying to be empathetic.  Who knows,
    it might be the first step towards being empathic (if you
    don't watch Star Trek: the next generation, this won't
    mean much, and it's merely meant as a joke anyway..).
    
    Have a good weekend all,
    
    Richard

Re .247  Gerry,

FWIW, I heartily endorse "attempts to broaden empathy."  

    > It wasn't, "From what I can see, outing is an invasion 
    > of privacy, but then I don't have a lot of experience with gay people.  
    > Is there something I'm not seeing?"  It was, "Of course outing is an 
    > invasion of privacy.  It's wrong and shouldn't be done.  How can you 
    > argue otherwise?"  

I agree that the former is the diplomatic manner of communication which 
would indicate an interest in broadening empathy.  Unfortunately, we humans 
are not all diplomats.

    > I say that that is arrogant.  

If those are quotes, then yes.  I read the notes as honest (sometimes 
emotional) opinions, expressed by people whose level of knowledge on the 
subject is unknown.  I seem to remember though, that at one point you gave 
everyone an "A+" on the issue.

>>I also think it's a type of discrimination:  If you  perceive me to be X, you 
>>don't value my opinion and you don't let me vote; 

    > No one ever said anything about not valuing an opinion.  

I refer you to 452.215: "If you aren't gay...your opinion is...in my 
opinion, worthless."  Similar sentiments have been expressed in .28, .69 
and many others, including:

    > This is about 
    > "community," not valuing outside opinions.  

To me, this is about people, where everyone's opinion should be valued from 
their own perspective.

>>I just can't buy into this type of 'black  vs. 
>>white' view of the world.  And frankly, since I don't consider you to be any 
>>better than me (nor any worse!), I don't have to prove anything to you.  

    > You certainly do if you want to enter into a healthy relationship with 
    > me, one that is mutually respective and empowering and not ruled by 
    > power imbalances ("You're wrong!  Do it _my_ way.").  

If those are supposed to be quotes from me, I'd appreciate a pointer to 
where I said that.  Re "power imbalances":  You don't like being dictated to 
by the 'straight community;' straight people don't like being dictated to by 
the 'gay community;' and some people don't like being dictated to by anybody.  

Re "enter into a healthy relationship":  Sorry Gerry, you're not my type.
<insert appropriate smiley-face>

Seriously though...No, I don't have to prove anything to you, or to anyone 
else.  "Empathy, understanding and mutual support" are not default values 
automatically inserted into each relationship when two people meet.  They 
must be earned, and that takes time.   Sometimes they never happen.  The 
only 'default value' that should be present (imo) is the basic respect and 
common courtesy which all people deserve.

    > Also, mutual understanding doesn't happen unless people are genuine 
    > with one another, unless we are very honest about how we feel.  

I agree.  You can be honestly angry, and other people can be honestly angry, 
insulted, afraid, or whatever.  Can I empathize with being angry?  Yes, 
although it doesn't happen very often.  I read the entire GCN article posted 
here.  I also had the opportunity to read a variety of viewpoints in _Outweek_ 
and _Bay Windows_.  There are differing opinions among g/l/b people as well as 
heterosexual people.  I value your honest opinion, but I do not grant you that 
it is the only one, the '100% right' one, which should be accepted as gospel 
and not be disagreed with.

Can I empathize with being suddenly and unexpectedly exposed about something 
I would have preferred to keep private, or continue working on in my own way? 
Yes.  Can I empathize with the detrimental results?  Yes.  Am I anxious to put 
anyone else through that hell?  No.

As I have said before, you have every right to your honest opinion.  So 
does everyone else, whether you or I think they are 'right' or 'wrong.'
You do not like "feeling insulted, pushed on, and devalued;" neither do I,
and neither does anyone else.

Cheers,
deb :-}

>    Gerry, not to take a chink out of your argument, but if
>    the government is going to provide medical assistance to
>    women who cannot afford abortions (a goverment program
>    I support), and men are expected to contribute to the
>    program with their taxes, then yes, men have a vote
>    on the abortion issue. 

Good point.  I'll have to rethink my position on that one.


						--Ger

    I've spent several days reading through all of the replies to this
    note. Reply #251 by Mark contained a thought that I feel also.
    That thought being that the concept of outing sets up a precedence that
    can have far reaching implications.

    As a "strate" (as per Ger's spelling) or Het or whatever term you wish
    to apply to a non-gay male I do have things in my past that are private
    and I do not wish to have become public. Either while alive or dead,
    unless I specifically share those experiences with somebody that I chose
    to share same with. 

    There are aspects of Human Sexuality that are always outside of the
    "norm" or acceptable. For many being gay/bisexual/lesbian is outside of
    their "normal" life experience. However, even "strates" have our
    secrets. There are such things as swing clubs, "mate" swapping,
    menage-a-trois, liaisons outside of the commitment to a specific person,
    etc. that do occur. For those people involved in such things if they 
    chose to tell about such experiences or not is their right and nobody 
    else's. I am not saying that what they may or may not be doing is or is
    not right or proper, just that it is their life and not mine or anybody
    else's business. Gays are not the only people with a sexual
    orientation, or desire, or preference that is subject to outing.
    Strates who are involved in things such as the above also may or may
    not wish same to be known. That is their right to decide, not mine or
    anybody else's. Outing can affect far more than just gays, but strates
    as well, and as a strate I feel I have a right to speak about such and
    the fact that I do not want it.

    I have a friend that is a Lesbian. She has come out to those she feels
    comfortable with, but not to those she wishes not to know. Is she
    closeted or not? I think not, she is simply using her own right to
    express herself in her own way as she sees fit to who she wishes. I
    know her well enough to know that were she to die she still would want
    her status to be in her control, that is those who know do, those who
    didn't still don't.

    Fundamentally I am against anything that takes away an individuals
    right to their privacy, and do not feel that anybody has a right, or
    reason to take that away from somebody else. The things in my
    background that are private to me, my wife knows about. Her children and
    my parents however, do not. If I were to die on the way home tonight I
    would still want it the same way, that is the children and my parents
    to never know. First it's none of their concern, second the possible
    embarrassment and negative reactions would cause them harm.

    We don't live in a perfect world, and that lack of perfection affects
    all of us in the human race, not just gay/bisexual/lesbian, "strate's",
    blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc. All of us have things we do and don't
    want exposed, and nobody should be able to take that away from the
    individual. 

    A corrupt politician causing harm/grief to his/her constituents 
    or a subset thereof is wrong. It needs to be addressed for
    what it is, wrong, not just if the politician is gay, strate,
    polka-dotted or blue. Expose them what they are, people in power using
    that power unfairly or in a damaging way. The fact that said politician
    is or is not gay is not germane. If said politician is actively hurting
    gays and is gay themselves they are hurting more than just gays. They
    hurt all of society and should be castigated for being a poor
    politician. Whether they are gay or not isn't important, they are wrong
    and should be dealt with, by being exposed not first and foremost as a
    gay but as a bad politician affecting the lives of many. The many being
    not just gays, but strates and everybody in their constituency. If said
    politician is so corrupt in their makeup to cause harm or grief to
    gays by their actions and votes while being gay themselves in the
    closet, they are hurting everybody with their bias, prejudice, and 
    corruption, not just gays.

    We all need to become aware of and not condone bad politicians. Don't
    however, take away my right (or anybody else's) in life or death to my
    privacy and ability to control who does and does not know something
    about me.

I have tried very, very hard not to use the word "strate" in this 
file.  I do this because heterosexual folks have given me the feedback 
that it is insulting to them.  

If I slipped up and used that term in here, then I apologize.  I'll 
try harder to keep it out of my notes here.


							--Gerry

    re .258  If possible could you summarize his points for us ?
    
                                                  Thanks,
    
                                                         Russ

Underneath:  Slow boil.

Outward:  "La dee dah, La _dee_ _dah_!"

For most people, you really gotta be openly gay or bi to understand a
lot of the pain, anger, and frustration that this topic evokes in us. 
(A lot of you disagreed with me a year ago on this point, and I fully 
expect you to disagree with me this year, as well.)  

Recently, a Minnesotta judge refused to grant custody of Sharon 
Kowalski to her lover, Karen Thompson.  (Background: they were 
closeted lovers, one was in a car accident and entered into a comma, 
the other fought the parents for custody rights, the case has been in 
and out of court for years.)  

Even though previous decisions had _clearly_ shown that Karen was more 
capable in taking care of Sharon, the judge ruled that Karen did not 
have the best interest of her lover in mind, because she VIOLATED HER 
LOVER'S PRIVACY BY OUTING HER.

Un-freaking-believable.

She trys to remain in the closet.  She is totally ignored by her 
lover's parents, who initially claim custody.  In order to prove that 
she is her lover and, like heterosexual partners, has the right to 
care for her lover, she has to come out.  She clearly proves that she 
is better capable of caring for her lover (her lover's parents had 
placed her in an inferior nursing home; after a few months of home 
care by Karen, Sharon made excellent progress).  She wins preliminary 
court cases.  Then, a higher court refuses to grant her custody, 
because she did something that the heterosexuals forced her to do in 
the first place.  (How else could she have proven her "right" to care 
for her lover without outing Sharon???)

Some of us live our lives openly, putting up with the constant threat
of "attitude," name-calling, firing, court losses, beatings,
disrespect for our families, death, and all sorts of other stuff. And
some gay and bi people, through very, very careful choices of words,
put out a "default heterosexual" face to maintain what we call
"heterosexual privilege."  If you appear to be heterosexual, you don't
have to put up with a lot of the threats that the openly-gay people
do. 

For very brief periods of time, I hate heterosexuals.  For very brief 
periods of time, I hate gay and bi people who use the closet to 
manipulate and to self-advance.  

Am I a lessor person because of it?  Probably.  I'm just being honest 
about my short coming, I guess.

Sometimes I burn....

...and then I mellow out and get on with my life.

[END_OF_VENTING]
							--Gerry

.260> ...the judge ruled that Karen did not have the best interest of
.260> her lover in mind, because she VIOLATED HER LOVER'S PRIVACY BY
.260> OUTING HER.

Gerry, I have a healthy RESPECT for your opinion on this subject, but,
there are other opinions which are diametrically opposite of yours, and,
is it possible that the opposition opinion is the majority opinion?

I can appreciate and RESPECT your comment that the judges decision is
"Un-freaking-believable", however, consider that legally, there just
may be precedence for his decision, and, it is his opinion that this
was in fact a gross violation of privacy?  From what I have seen in
this string of notes, it is the majority opinion that "outing" is in
fact a violation of privacy.

I, personally, could never participate in or precipitate "outing" of
ANYONE for ANY reason.  It is, in my mind, the lowest form of invasion
of privacy, a despicable act, odious, and, the epitome of pusillanimity.

You, on the other hand, feel differently.  If there is legal precedence
for "invasion of privacy" to include 'outing', perhaps you it would be
advantageous to organize opposition to such law and prove that outing
is both legal and justified?  I venture to say that the ramifications
of such a law would be ... devastating, to say the least.

.260> ...and then I mellow out and get on with my life.

Yep ... I pop open a can of Miller Genuine Draft ... the world looks
a lot better after a good cold beer ...

Bubba

    Jerry,
    
    With all due respect for the law and legal precedent, can you
    honestly, in your gut, say that what that judge did was
    right?  There are good laws and bad laws, and just because
    the majority agrees with something, doesn't make it
    right for everyone.
    
    I'm with Gerry on this, it's a moral outrage what these
    two women have had to contend with.
    
    Richard

.262> With all due respect for the law and legal precedent, can you
.262> honestly, in your gut, say that what that judge did was
.262> right?

Yes.  Within the context of our system of government, as it exists today,
privacy, and, the rights thereof, are paramount.  I would be concerned that
relaxation of those rights of privacy would be to begin the degradation
of those rights as a whole.  I think that this could lead to some serious
consequences.  Please, don't take this out of context, but, read on ...

If we accept a basis of "right to privacy" and at the same time EXCLUDE
sexual orientation from the "right to privacy" is that not paramount to 
saying "we all have inalienable rights unless you're homosexual"?   That,
in my mind, would be the beginning of the end.

.262> There are good laws and bad laws, and just because the majority agrees
.262> with something, doesn't make it right for everyone.
    
This epitomizes my above comment.  Are you willing to say that within the
context of the current discussion in this string, the "right to privacy"
may apply to the majority, but, not to homosexuals?

I would be very interested in your comments ... 

.262> I'm with Gerry on this, it's a moral outrage what these
.262> two women have had to contend with.

We are indeed living in times which are 'straining' the very core of our
existence ... I don't know all the answers.

Jerry

>.262> With all due respect for the law and legal precedent, can you
>.262> honestly, in your gut, say that what that judge did was
>.262> right?
>
>Yes.  Within the context of our system of government, as it exists today,
>privacy, and, the rights thereof, are paramount.  I would be concerned that
>relaxation of those rights of privacy would be to begin the degradation
>of those rights as a whole.  I think that this could lead to some serious
>consequences.  Please, don't take this out of context, but, read on ...
>
>If we accept a basis of "right to privacy" and at the same time EXCLUDE
>sexual orientation from the "right to privacy" is that not paramount to 
>saying "we all have inalienable rights unless you're homosexual"?   That,
>in my mind, would be the beginning of the end.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't true.  There is no overall "right to
privacy" that is guaranteed by the constitution or by the legal
system. I say this because I know that some people were thinking of
adding an amendment to the constitution to cover this area. There are
"types" or "situations" that are legally covered (illegal search and
seizure, for instance; also, some abortion laws are premised on a
right to privacy). 

There are plenty of instances in which a person's right to privacy is
subordinate to other rights.  For instance, a search warrent
supersedes the right of an individual to privacy.  Also, legally
requiring marriage applicants to submit to certain types of tests is a
legal invasion of privacy. 

And, since we are talking law here, let's talk about "intent."  The
intent of the person counts (not always, but it does count).  For
instance, "intent" separates murder from manslaughter.  Also for
example, "intent" can be the determining factor in libel cases 
("malicious intent").   

I maintain that intent is crucial to this case;  Karen Thompson 1) Did
not want to come out, for her or for her partner, and 2) Her intent
was to love her partner (the parents had a restraining order that
prevented the lovers from seeing each other) and to save her from
rotting in nursing home.  The "outing" was incidental, non-malicious,
and non-political.  Plus there was no reasonable choice for Karen:
Either never see your lover again and let her rot in a nursing home,
or Make the argument that you are her lover and deserve custody.  I 
also find it interesting that Karen is being held accountable for the 
outing when the parents and the courts and the media played as large a 
part in outing the couple as she did.  Why should she take 100% of the 
blame and responsibility?

Also, there is some question as to whether a person's sexual 
orientation is always "private."  For example, if someone reveals her 
or his orientation to me, is that then private information?  If 
someone attends a gay event and is seen with a partner of the same 
gender, is that information "private"?

I think it's fair to say that this case is complex and that it
shouldn't be reduced to an Outing is Right or Outing is Wrong point of
view.  I'm flabbergasted that outing was brought into this situation
at all.  This is about the legality of loving partnerships, not
outing. 

							--Gerry

.264> What can I buy with your respect, Jerry?  How does it help me to live 
.264> my life?  What can I do with it? Not much, probably.

A matter of common courtesy on my part.  Simply telling you that even though
we may disagree, I hold your opinion with respect and not animosity.  Sorry
if I offended you.

.264> Name the precedent, Jerry.  Name it!  I challenge you.

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer, and, said in my note, "is it possible".  I don't
know.  I asked the question for that very reason.  I know nothing about the
case, thought that you probably did, and, solicited your input.

.264> Also, answer me this, How can a gay lover argue that s/he is the best 
.264> person to be taking care of his or her partner without implicitly 
.264> revealing the nature of the relationship?

I don't know.

.264> This is not a case of outing.  This is a case of gay-family rights.  

Sorry, I misinterpreted the intent of your entry (based on the notes string
that it was in).

.264> So, if you were gay, you would let your partner rot in a nursing home 
.264> rather than fight for custody?

I would fight to see that this person had the BEST of care, be it from me
or from his/her parents.  I am divorced.  Were my ex-wife in a situation
where her parents were allowing her to "rot" in a nursing home, I would
fight like the dickens to get her better care, be it from me or another
nursing home.  I still love the woman dearly.  I would *like* to take
"custody" but would put my emotions aside and get whatever is best for
her.  In the case you speak of, "do what's best" may have in fact been the
significant other taking "custody".

Perhaps this analogy is not applicable, but, it's the only one that I
can think of for the purposes of trying to answer your question.
(Perhaps replace "wife" with "kids" and the situation would be more
applicable? Same logic would apply)

.264> ...yet you wouldn't fight for the custody of your gay lover?

Like I said, my emotions would probably say "I can do better" but I
would hope that I would simply get the best possible medical care.
Sorry, but, that's the best that I can do to answer your question.
I can only guess at what I may/may_not do.
    
.264> She didn't "out" her.  She saw her partner taken away from her and saw
.264> her rotting in a nursing home.  She tried to love and care for her
.264> partner.  How is that "despicable...odious, and, the epitome of
.264> pusillanimity"? 

Sorry, but, again, all I know about his is what you wrote in this
note - I was unaware of any "rotting" in a nursing home - I don't know
the details but simply took your note at face value.  My apology.

Jerry

 I have to side with Gerry and Richard here. The law may indeed specify that
an outing occurred, but despite my vehement opposition to outing, I cannot
agree that the ruling was just. The ruling may correct as a matter of law, but
it's still unjust. Such is unfortunately part and parcel of a system of justice
which relies on human beings to codify every aspect of human behavior before the
fact, when circumstances cannot always be adequately anticipated.

 The Doctah

Jerry, you weren't supposed to see the first version of my note!  I 
must place my first drafts in an editor, first, so that I can maintain 
my Right to Privacy (translated: so that I can keep people from seeing 
my more foolish side).   ;-)


							--Gerry

Jerry (.263),
    
    Thanks for responding, this is an issue that needs discussion.
    
>Yes.  Within the context of our system of government, as it exists today,
>privacy, and, the rights thereof, are paramount.  I would be concerned that
>relaxation of those rights of privacy would be to begin the degradation
>of those rights as a whole.  I think that this could lead to some serious
    
    I'm not a law expert, but I'll ask anyway: in the
    Constitution, is the right of privacy guaranteed?  I'd
    be willing to bet that this "right" is circumvented
    all the time (e.g.,what about news writers who go to jail for
    contempt for refusing to reveal sources?).  I'm not
    saying that we shouldn't have a basic right to privacy,
    I just take issue with the assertion that our society
    will fall apart if hypocrisy is not seen as a greater
    threat. In the Kowalski case, the latest ruling is based
    on prejudice and hypocrisy.  The judge took one facet of
    the case, and disregarded all the evidence that Karen
    Thompson had been working towards Sharon's best interests.
    
>If we accept a basis of "right to privacy" and at the same time EXCLUDE
>sexual orientation from the "right to privacy" is that not paramount to 
>saying "we all have inalienable rights unless you're homosexual"?   That,
>in my mind, would be the beginning of the end.

    Yes, whether it's in the Constitution or not, we *all* have
    a basic right to privacy, until we forego that right
    by violating others' rights.  I've never contended
    that gay people should be forced out of the closet
    if they don't want to be (it's much more empowering
    to come out voluntarily).  Pretty much the only
    time I've favored "outing" is when someone who
    secretly engages in homosexual behavior publicly
    denounces homosexuality (Jim Bakker would be an
    example of someone who's hypocrisy needed to be
    exposed).
    
    Now tell me, why is Sharon Kowalski's so-called
    right to privacy (a moot point, at this date) more
    important than her right to be cared for by the
    person she'd chosen to spend her life with, prior
    to her accident?  Sure, she has a right to privacy,
    but at the expense of all her other rights?
    What Karen Thompson has been doing is
    fighting for "partner's rights", with the hope
    that Sharon would want her to.  The judge ignored
    this, and based his ruling on his own prejudice that
    Sharon would have preferred to remain in the closet,
    cared for by strangers in a nursing home.  Sorry, but
    that just doesn't seem right or fair to me.  I know,
    the laws are not always right or fair.  To that I
    say, then we should change laws that aren't just.
    
>This epitomizes my above comment.  Are you willing to say that within the
>context of the current discussion in this string, the "right to privacy"
>may apply to the majority, but, not to homosexuals?

    At risk of repeating myself, the right to privacy is forfeited
    when a person actively works against someone else's rights,
    it doesn't matter whether that person is gay or non-gay.
    Tell me how Sharon Kowalski has been harmed by Karen stating publicly 
    that they loved each other and were committed to life together?
    Tell me that the judge didn't rule based on his own
    prejudices, or the prejudice of the legal system against
    gay people?  Wasn't his ruling based on the assumption
    that there is something wrong with being gay, something
    to be ashamed of?  In the absence of the ability to
    make one's own decisions, shouldn't a person's spouse
    be the one to exercise those decisions?  Doesn't the
    system discriminate against gays, by not allowing
    us to declare our commitment legally, as non-gays
    may?
    
    This ruling goes beyond issues of privacy to much
    deeper ones.  I think the judge avoided the
    larger issue by concentrating on the privacy issue.
    
    Richard

Whether or not the constitution guarantees a "right to privacy" is a topic
that is being hotly debated, right up to the Supreme Court.  This is largely
due to the battles over abortion, and whether government interference
in abortion constitutes a violation of a privacy right.  The term itself
never appears in the Constitution or any of its amendments.   The Court
is expected to rule on whether or not the Constitution actually implies that
such a right exists.

As with similar issues, many people will talk about a "right" when in fact
it is not obvious that such a "right" exists in our nation's laws.  (Please
don't interpret this statement as suggesting that I don't think such rights
ought to be codified - I am merely explaining, as best I understand it,
the current legal status of such claims.)



					Steve

.264> I'm pretty sure that this isn't true.  There is no overall "right to
.264> privacy" that is guaranteed by the constitution or by the legal
.264> system.

As has now been pointed out by Mr. Lionel, this is correct.  Actually,
I don't know the *legal* basis for right to privacy, but, there seems
to be a generally accepted thesis that there is such a thing (and I
thoroughly agree).

.264> There are plenty of instances in which a person's right to privacy is
.264> subordinate to other rights.  For instance, a search warrent
.264> supersedes the right of an individual to privacy.

Absolutely.  Similarly for wiretaps.  Similarly in times of armed conflict
between nations your right to "privacy" is violated.  If a judge gave
a warrant which would allow someone to be 'outed' then we have a whole
new discussion on our hands.  I doubt that we'll see that. I hope we don't.

.264> Also, legally requiring marriage applicants to submit to certain types
.264> of tests is a legal invasion of privacy. 

Granted, but, is there not some (somewhere) theory that says that this
is for the "good" of society (i.e., like blood test for STDs)?

Same for wiretaps and search warrants:  for the "good" of the whole.
STDs are a threat to all of us ... those who are harboring (for example)
stolen goods are in fact breaking the law and we issue a search warrant,
those who are using the phones for smuggling dope or contemplating a
crime are subject to wiretaps.

Does "outing" serve some inherrent good for the betterment of society as
a whole?

If a homosexual is resolutely against gay rights and speaks out against
them, but, remains "in the closet" (whatever that is) .. is he/she a threat
to anyone?  Is he/she breaking a law?

.264> And, since we are talking law here, let's talk about "intent."  The
.264> intent of the person counts (not always, but it does count).  For
.264>instance, "intent" separates murder from manslaughter.

Good point.  What is the "intent" of outing someone?  For the good of
society as a whole, or, malicious intent?

.264> I maintain that intent is crucial to this case;

I'm not clear as to whether you are discussing outing or, as you put it,
gay family rights and will therefore decline comment with the exception
that "intent" is indeed a factor.

.264> Why should she take 100% of the blame and responsibility?

Excellent opportunity to discuss responsibility and outing.

Assume you outed someone and later found out that you were wrong -
the person was not homosexual.  By that time the person's reputation
and career may have been ruined.  Are you willing to pay the price? 
Are you willing to make restitution?  Can you make restitution?  What
recourse does the wronged person have?  I would be  V E R Y  interested
in your perspective on this.

[Thankfully, hopefully, Randy Travis will not suffer because of the
recent try_to_out incident ... if he does, that ol' boy has surely
got enough money to cause someone a lot of grief]

.264> Also, there is some question as to whether a person's sexual 
.264> orientation is always "private."

Personally, I would consider it private.  I think that Digital as a
corporation also considers it to be personal information, and, therefore
private.  Legally?  That is the current question.

.264> For example, if someone reveals her or his orientation to me, is
.264> that then private information?

A lot has been said in other notes about common courtesy and respecting
others wishes.  As a matter of common courtesy I would certainly ask
that person if he/she considered that information to be private, then,
I would resolutely respect that person's wishes.  If that person says "yes"
it is private, and, you do not respect their wishes, then, you suffer
(any) consequences ... personal and/or professional within your environment.

.264> If someone attends a gay event and
.264> is seen with a partner of the same gender, is that information "private"?

I took the "Valuing Differences" course that DEC offers and it taught
me a great deal about ASSUMPTIONS that people make. There's a difference
between information, assumptions, and gossip.

.264> I think it's fair to say that this case is complex and that it
.264> shouldn't be reduced to an Outing is Right or Outing is Wrong point of
.264> view.  I'm flabbergasted that outing was brought into this situation
.264> at all.

If that is the reason that this case was mentioned in the "outing" note,
then I resolutely agree.  The  O N L Y  thing on the mind of all parties
concerned  S H O U L D  be that of the best care possible for the injured
one.  Right?

Jerry

Jerry,

So the bottom line in Karen and Sharon's case is this:

	1) If Karen doesn't out Sharon, she has no basis to claim a close
	relationship and so will be denied custody.

	2) If she does out Sharon, she will be denied custody for violating
	Sharon's rights.


Catch-22. That's wrong, that's unjust. The judge was wrong.

	-- Charles

.268> I'm not a law expert....

Good, we're even. :-)

.268> I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a basic right to privacy,
.268> I just take issue with the assertion that our society
.268> will fall apart if hypocrisy is not seen as a greater
.268> threat.

We're treading old ground here if we get into this, but, "hypocrisy" is
very much in the eye of the beholder.   To a Baptist, a Methodist
may be hypocritical ... etc ... no .. to define hypocrisy in legal terms
would be an incredible mistake.  What I see you saying is that we
have a right to privacy unless you determine that I'm hypocritical.
No go.

.268> Yes, whether it's in the Constitution or not, we *all* have
.268> a basic right to privacy, until we forego that right
.268> by violating others' rights.

...and ... if in the opinion of someone, a person is hypocritical, then
that is a greater danger and right to privacy is therefore null and
void?  Being hypocritical is a moral issue - not a legal one.

.268> What Karen Thompson has been doing is fighting for "partner's
.268> rights", with the hope that Sharon would want her to.  The judge
.268> ignored this...

Richard, let us hope that judges don't base their rulings on "with the
hope that".  In *this* case I assure you that, knowing what little I
know of it, it may have been what the incapacitated person would have wanted,
but, lacking evidence to the contrary, what other choice did the judge
have?

.268> ...based his ruling on his own prejudice that Sharon would have
.268> preferred to remain in the closet, cared for by strangers in a
.268> nursing home.  Sorry, but that just doesn't seem right or fair to me.

No, it may not be right or fair, but, in our judicial system, as it exist
today, lacking evidence to the contrary, I honestly don't see just what
other choice the judge had.

.268> I know,  the laws are not always right or fair.  To that I say,
.268> then we should change laws that aren't just.
    
Precisely.  Start by legalizing homosexual marriages.

>This epitomizes my above comment.  Are you willing to say that within the
>context of the current discussion in this string, the "right to privacy"
>may apply to the majority, but, not to homosexuals?

.268> At risk of repeating myself, the right to privacy is forfeited
.268> when a person actively works against someone else's rights,
.268> it doesn't matter whether that person is gay or non-gay.

I voted against the ERA, and, will vote against any legislated gay
rights.  I am distressed to find that my rights have been forfeited.

.268> Tell me how Sharon Kowalski has been harmed by Karen stating publicly 
.268> that they loved each other and were committed to life together?

Is this "case" issue closed or not?  I thought that Gerry said that this
was not an 'outing' issue, but, more of family rights.

.268> Tell me that the judge didn't rule based on his own prejudices, or
.268> the prejudice of the legal system against gay people?

I don't know the judge or the case and it would be presumptuous of me to
even venture a guess.

.268> Wasn't his ruling based on the assumption that there is something
.268> wrong with being gay, something to be ashamed of?

I have no earthly idea.

.268> In the absence of the ability to make one's own decisions, shouldn't
.268> a person's spouse be the one to exercise those decisions?

Yes, but, this incapacitated person did not have a legal spouse.

.268> Doesn't the system discriminate against gays, by not allowing
.268> us to declare our commitment legally, as non-gays may?
    
Yes.  If you want to get married (legally) you should be able to do so.

.268> This ruling goes beyond issues of privacy to much deeper ones.  I
.268> think the judge avoided the larger issue by concentrating on the privacy
.268> issue.

Again, from the little I know, from a LEGAL perspective, I don't know that
he could make a ruling on what he *thought* the incapacitated one would
want.

Change the laws concerning gay marriages, then, this issue is mute.

Jerry

PS: Personal question, don't answer if you don't want to, but, have
you made any "arrangements" to insure that this does not happen to
you .. that is to say, a case similar to this one?

>.264> Also, legally requiring marriage applicants to submit to certain types
>.264> of tests is a legal invasion of privacy. 
>
>Granted, but, is there not some (somewhere) theory that says that this
>is for the "good" of society (i.e., like blood test for STDs)?
>...
>
>Does "outing" serve some inherrent good for the betterment of society as
>a whole?

Now we're getting somewhere.  Let's approach the topic from the
"betterment of society as a whole" angle.  

Does it benefit society to support the notion that intimate
partners--gay, heterosexual, or bi--have the right of custody in case
their partners fall ill?  Does it benefit society to support the
notion that people who poorly serve ill people in their care should be
removed of their gardianship in favor of an intimate partner trained
in rehabilitation?  Or, does it benefit society to use the fact of
Sharon's inadvertant outing to prevent her partner from legal
guardianship?   Which angle best serves what our society is, what it
stands for, and where it is going? 

>If a homosexual is resolutely against gay rights and speaks out against
>them, but, remains "in the closet" (whatever that is) .. is he/she a threat
>to anyone?  Is he/she breaking a law?

Nit: most gay people I know, including myself, prefer the terms 
"lesbian and gay people" to "homosexual."  If you would like, I think 
a lot of us would appreciate it if you didn't call us homosexuals.  
Thanks.

RE Threats and societal benefits, see my preceding points.

>.264> And, since we are talking law here, let's talk about "intent."  The
>.264> intent of the person counts (not always, but it does count).  For
>.264>instance, "intent" separates murder from manslaughter.
>
>Good point.  What is the "intent" of outing someone?  For the good of
>society as a whole, or, malicious intent?

She did not out her lover.  She exercised her freedom of speech to 
come out for herself, hoping that she could win custody of her lover.  
And, in the process, her lover's sexual orientation was revealed.  I 
still maintain that this is not really a case of outing.

>.264> I maintain that intent is crucial to this case;
>
>I'm not clear as to whether you are discussing outing or, as you put it,
>gay family rights and will therefore decline comment with the exception
>that "intent" is indeed a factor.

Do you understand the facts of the case?  It doesn't sound as if you 
do.  You seem to be approaching this from the idea that Karen shouted 
out "Sharon is Lesbian!"  She actually shouted out, "As Sharon's 
lover and as a physical therapist, I don't deserve to be prevented 
from seeing Sharon or prevented from being her guardian."

>.264> Why should she take 100% of the blame and responsibility?
>
>Excellent opportunity to discuss responsibility and outing.
>
>Assume you outed someone and later found out that you were wrong -
>the person was not homosexual.  By that time the person's reputation
>and career may have been ruined.  Are you willing to pay the price? 
>Are you willing to make restitution?  Can you make restitution?  What
>recourse does the wronged person have?  I would be  V E R Y  interested
>in your perspective on this.

And, unlike you, I will stick to the topic.  The woman is recovering 
from a comma, will never walk again, and will be lucky to communicate 
verbally again.  (She can communicate currently using a keyboard and a 
terminal, I think.)  The woman who came out is her lover (in 
actuality, her sexual orientation is irrelevent, since the main point 
of all this is "I'm her partner").  It is extraordinarily clear that, 
in this case, absolutely no harm was done to Sharon Kowalski.

It's interesting that you are more interested in the hypothetical harm 
to Sharon's job and reputation than you are to the actual harm that is 
being done by allowing her parents custody for 5 years, a time span 
that has probably made some physical rehabilitation impossible now.  

I understand that outing can harm people.  But it doesn't apply in 
this case.  That seems very clear to me.  No?

>.264> If someone attends a gay event and
>.264> is seen with a partner of the same gender, is that information "private"?
>
>I took the "Valuing Differences" course that DEC offers and it taught
>me a great deal about ASSUMPTIONS that people make. There's a difference
>between information, assumptions, and gossip.

It is possible to see a person's gayness/bi-ness at a gay event 
without any assumptions being made.

>.264> I think it's fair to say that this case is complex and that it
>.264> shouldn't be reduced to an Outing is Right or Outing is Wrong point of
>.264> view.  I'm flabbergasted that outing was brought into this situation
>.264> at all.
>
>If that is the reason that this case was mentioned in the "outing" note,
>then I resolutely agree.  The  O N L Y  thing on the mind of all parties
>concerned  S H O U L D  be that of the best care possible for the injured
>one.  Right?

So why are you arguing so vehemently that the judge may be right to 
bring outing into the decision?   What's your point, Jerry?

							--Gerry

.273> Does it benefit society to support the notion that intimate
.273> partners--gay, heterosexual, or bi--have the right of custody in case
.273> their partners fall ill?

I don't know.  Have to think about this.

.273> Does it benefit society to support the notion that people who
.273> poorly serve ill people in their care should be removed of their
.273> gardianship in favor of an intimate partner trained in rehabilitation?

I was unaware of any allegations that the incapacitated person was being
poorly served.  To answer your question in very general terms, the answer
would be yes, obviously.

.273> Or, does it benefit society to use the fact of Sharon's inadvertant
.273> outing to prevent her partner from legal guardianship?

Yes, it does "benefit" society.  The legal precedence could have some
far reaching and serious consequences in other arenas.

.273> Nit: most gay people I know, including myself, prefer the terms 
.273> "lesbian and gay people" to "homosexual."  If you would like, I think 
.273> a lot of us would appreciate it if you didn't call us homosexuals.  

As you wish.  I know some individuals who have same-sex partners who want
to be called "homosexual" and not "gay" .. a matter of personal preferfence
and I will abide by your wishes when addressing you.  You, in turn, may
address me as "sir" ... :-)

.273> I still maintain that this is not really a case of outing.

I don't really know.  Have to think about it.

.273> Do you understand the facts of the case?  It doesn't sound as if you 
.273> do.

Nope, sure don't.  I've said that a number of times.  I know only what
you put into your note.

>Assume you outed someone and later found out that you were wrong -
>the person was not homosexual.  By that time the person's reputation
>and career may have been ruined.  Are you willing to pay the price? 
>Are you willing to make restitution?  Can you make restitution?  What
>recourse does the wronged person have?  I would be  V E R Y  interested
>in your perspective on this.

.273> And, unlike you, I will stick to the topic.

I checked the title of the base note and it's still "outing".  I think
(thought) the above questions were applicable to the string in general.

I repeat the above questions for your consideration and await your
answer(s).  Since you are a proponent of outing, I would value your
opinion on the above questions.

.273> It's interesting that you are more interested in the hypothetical harm 
.273> to Sharon's job and reputation than you are to the actual harm that is 
.273> being done by allowing her parents custody for 5 years.....

The questions concerning job and reputation are not with respect to this
court case...sorry if I did not make that clear.

.273> I understand that outing can harm people.  But it doesn't apply in 
.273> this case.  That seems very clear to me.  No?

Thank you.  I'm sure that it can harm people, particularly if you're wrong
in the accusations .. and ... await your response to the above questions
concerning restitution.  Is this case a clear case of 'outing' ... I don't
really know ... there's a side of me that says 'yes' and a side of me that
says 'no'.

.273> It is possible to see a person's gayness/bi-ness at a gay event 
.273> without any assumptions being made.

Yes, it may be 'possible' but I prefer facts to 'possible'.  I go to 
extremes to avoid turning 'possible' into what could be damaging rumors.

.273> So why are you arguing so vehemently that the judge may be right to 
.273> bring outing into the decision?   What's your point, Jerry?

Sorry, I can see where the misunderstanding may have been started.  I
*may* not agree with the judge (that outing was a factor) but, without
EVIDENCE that the incapacitated one would want one or the other to have
custody .. what choice did he have?

Jerry

    I've only time for a brief reply.  Gerry is arguing more
    articulately than I am anyway.  One thing, if I may speak
    for both him and me, neither of us is a "proponent" of
    widespread outing.  In *some* cases, where closeted homosexuals (I
    think the term gay would be inappopriate for them) work
    actively against the rights of gay people, outing works
    to deflate their power, by pointing out their hypocrisy.
    Terry Dolan was one such person.
    
    An aside, and probably a different topic: 
    
    Jerry, which of your rights is violated by the ERA or
    anti-discrimination law to protect gay people? (gay "rights"
    is a misnomer, I keep saying; we have no special rights, but
    we obviouslty need protection from people who would fire us, bash us, or
    keep us from renting apartments just for being gay)
    
    I realize that much of the reasoning in my note .268 wouldn't stand 
    up in court, based on emotions and subjectivity.  I contend, though,that
    a lot of laws are based on emotions and moral subjectivity.  The 
    bottom line for me, in the Sharon Kowalski case, is that the 
    judge ruled solely on one issue, Sharon's privacy, rather than taking 
    into consideration Karen Thompson's rights as a Sharon's partner 
    in the matter.   As you say Jerry, if same-sex marrige were legal, 
    this might not have happened.  Or, as Jerry asked in his 
    question to me, if Sharon and Karen had protected themselves with some 
    kind of legal partnership and/or will (living will, power of
    attorney), they might have had some recourse in court.
    I say "might" because in some courts, such an agreement
    could be overruled in favor of the blood family, which
    wouldn't be right, though it may be legal.  (To answer
    your question to me Jerry, yes, we're in the process of
    drawing up a will, after much procrastination).
    
    Richard
    

.275> In *some* cases, where closeted homosexuals ...work actively
.275> against the rights of gay people, outing works to deflate their power,
.275> by pointing out their hypocrisy.  Terry Dolan was one such person.

"...actively against the rights of gay people..." is a very subjective term,
and, I'm not familiar with the name "Terry Dolan" and therefore decline
comment.

.275> Jerry, which of your rights is violated by the ERA or anti-discrimination
.275> law to protect gay people?

Yes, this is a different subject and not really for discussion here, therefore
only a "brief" answer.  I am not female, but have strong emotions on the subject
of abortion.  Also, we live in a collective community and phrases like "common
good" come to mind.  I am a strong believer in inalienable rights, and, to
enact such legislation is to say that those inalienable rights never existed
in the first place.  I am a strong believer in precedence - I don't like the
precedence issue .. blah .. blah ... blah ... 

.275>...the judge ruled solely on one issue..rather than taking into consid-
.275> eration Karen Thompson's rights as a Sharon's partner in the matter.

What EVIDENCE or PROOF did the judge have in consideration of the relationship
between these two people?  One person's word?  Perhaps.  Perhaps he could have
ruled on the basis of that.  For the umpteenth time, I don't know that much
about the details of the case.

Time to go sell some hardware so that you people who work in "corporate" can
continue to live in the luxurious manner to which you are accustomed ... :-)

Jerry

    RE an agreement aka living will
    
    Wouldn't the same thing happen to a het couple living together. Would
    not the 'blood' family have legal custody. There is legal precedence
    for living wills. Our justice system is based upon precedence (most of
    the time).
    
    To all of you living/loving together. You may want to think about this
    be you of any orientation. Having an 'agreement' or 'living will' that
    is.
    
    
    Steve

    
>    Wouldn't the same thing happen to a het couple living together. Would
>    not the 'blood' family have legal custody. There is legal precedence
>    for living wills. Our justice system is based upon precedence (most of
>    the time).
    
We gay people are not allowed to marry, in the "legal" sense.  The 
difference is that heterosexual people have more choice and have 
rights that we don't have.

>    To all of you living/loving together. You may want to think about this
>    be you of any orientation. Having an 'agreement' or 'living will' that
>    is.
    
For gay people, this can still be over turned in favor of blood 
relatives.  However, I agree with you that this is a good idea.  The 
gay community runs seminars in this.


							--Gerry

    RE Gerry:
    
    I have to ask. Why do gay men (and lesbians I presume) not like the
    word Homosexual?
    
    Question #2: Isn't that (homosexual) the generic/medical/psy/I don't know
    term?
    
    
    Steve

    
>    I have to ask. Why do gay men (and lesbians I presume) not like the
>    word Homosexual?
    
A lot (not all) homosexual people feel that their sexual orientation 
is more than just "sexual."  They feel that there is a social 
component, a "community" component.  Some, especially women, feel that 
there is a "political" component.  The word "homosexual" when used as 
a noun ("The homosexuals marched...") doesn't cover the spectrum of 
what a lot of us feel we are about.  

A lot of us choose the label "gay," because we feel that we have 
instilled the word with a broader meaning than "someone who has sex 
with someone of the same sex."

I have less of a problem with someone calling me a "homosexual man."  
Because when the word is used as an adjective, it at least feels that 
this is a "part" of me and not "all" of me.

>    Question #2: Isn't that (homosexual) the generic/medical/psy/I don't know
>    term?

Of course it is.  Technical accuracy is not the point.  It would be 
technically accurate for me to call you a Homo Sapien, for instance, 
but I bet it might get pretty annoying after a while.  (Depends on the 
context and the pejoritive spin I put on it.)  

Also, there is nothing technically wrong with "negro," but it is 
impolite to use that term (or maybe I should say, "ill advised").  I 
am saying that it is at least ill advised and at most impolite to call 
a gay person "a homosexual."  

If they prefer to be called "a homosexual," then they will tell you,
and you can make an exception for them.  And I guarantee you that
those people will be in the vast minority. 


							--Gerry

    RE .280
    
    Thanks Gerry
    
    
    BTW I saw the 'original' .280 (nothing wrong with IMHO)
    
    Steve

>                            -< Some questions to be answered ...please? >-

You get to say "I'll go off and think about this," but we've got to 
answer your questions immediately or you get pissy.  Geez.

Okay, here is my answer, but this is my last note in this string for a 
while:

>>Assume you outed someone and later found out that you were wrong -
>>the person was not homosexual.  By that time the person's reputation
>>and career may have been ruined.  Are you willing to pay the price? 
>>Are you willing to make restitution?  Can you make restitution?  What
>>recourse does the wronged person have?  I would be  V E R Y  interested
>>in your perspective on this.
>
>I repeat the above questions for your consideration and await your
>answer(s).  Since you are a proponent of outing, I would value your
>opinion on the above questions.

I don't believe that you value my opinion.  I also don't believe that 
you don't know what my answer is to the question.  I also don't 
appreciate you badgering me into keying this in, when I have hundreds 
of lines of notes in this string that explain my position.  (Do you 
know my position on this issue, Jerry?  I don't think that the blanket 
term "proponent of outing," fits how I feel about this.)

First, there is not law that unilaterally covers "outing."  Period.  
People keep scrambling to find one, but I haven't heard anyone find  
the law.

The libel laws come close, but, not all outing is libelous. To prove
libel, you have to prove either "malicious intent" or "knowing
beforehand that the information is incorrect."  (It is crystal clear
to me that bad things can happen to someone because of information
that some other person released without lying and without malicious
intent.  This is not libel.  For instance, if someone refuses to hire
Nancy Reagan as a spokeswoman after reading a true statement in Kitty
Kelly's book, then Kelly is not responsible unless they could prove
that she intended to keep Nancy from getting hired as a spokeswoman. 
Got it?) 

Second, it is uncertain whether the out-er is "responsible" for 
clearly bad things happening to the out-ee.  For instance, let's say 
that I told a group of my friends that this guy Joe was Jewish.  Let's 
say that one of my friends was a skin-head (violent racist group) but 
that I didn't know that.  Let's say that this skin-head goes out and 
beats up Joe.  Although that particular violent act would not have taken 
place without me revealing my information, I am clearly not 
responsible for that action.  However, what if it could be proven that 
I am an enemy of Joe's, that I purposefully went up to a bunch of skin 
heads, told them that Joe is Jewish, and told them where they could 
find Joe and at what time?  I would then be responsible, to a 
significant extent, for Joe's beating.

Back to your question:  I can think of a situation in which I could be 
held responsible.  If I outed someone and they weren't gay, and if 
malicious intent or prior knowledge of statement falsehood could be 
proven, then I am responsible.  As for restitution, the only type that 
I could make would be the type built into our legal system, and our 
legal system is built for justice (at best) and not for restitution.  
(How can a murderer make restitution to the family of the deceased, 
even if the murderer is executed?)  However, I could imagine being 
asked to give up every penny that I had.

I can also think of a situation in which I am not held responsible, if 
I did not have malicious intent or prior knowledge of the falsehood.  
Also, for example, in some states (Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Hawaii, 
and soon Connecticut), it is against the law to discriminate based on 
sexual orientation (even against heterosexual people!).  So, if a 
person lost his or her job due to my incorrect and nonmaliciously 
intended outing, then it is the employer who has broken the law and 
can be sued.  

Reputation is a little trickier to prove.  Reputation doesn't mean 
squat in a legal sense unless it is tied to an ability to make a 
living or to have equal access to public accomodations.  Again, if I 
did not have malicious intent and didn't have prior knowledge of the 
falsehood, then the people blocking the victim from employment or from 
public accomodations are illegally discriminating and can be sued.

In the case of the outer not having malicious intent or prior 
knowledge of a falsehood, I think that you have to slap other parties 
for restitution of wrong doing.  Kind of a novel idea, huh?  Holding 
the discriminators responsible for the discrimination.

=====================================================================

I think I'm mellowing a bit on the outing issue. All in all, I would
give the gay community this advice: don't bother outing the closet
cases.  Just be as openly gay as you can be.  To the observant eye,
the closet cases respond by outing themselves. 

							--Gerry

.282> You get to say "I'll go off and think about this," but we've got to 
.282> answer your questions immediately or you get pissy.  Geez.

Please accept my apology if any "urgency" was implied by my request for
information.  Such was not intended and I sincerely regret any misunderstanding.

We all have a job to do, and, DECwork comes first.  I thank you for taking
the time to answer these questions and hope that it did not in any way
inconvenience you.

.282> I don't believe that you value my opinion.

I do.  That's all that I can say.

.282> I also don't believe that you don't know what my answer is to the
.282> question.

Well, I must admit that I have done only a cursory reading of the previous
replies, and, if the answers to these questions were there, I missed it.  Please
accept my apology if I did.

.282> I don't think that the blanket term "proponent of outing," fits how
.282> I feel about this.

My apology.  Those words were perhaps ill chosen.  I shall try to be more
careful in the future.

.282>The libel laws come close, but, not all outing is libelous....Got it?

Yes, I have filed libel suits before (and won).

Your examples of "intent" and "prior knowledge" and relevance to existing
'gay rights laws' in other states is from my limited perspective of the legal
system, accurate.  I have in the past paid (too much!) money to attorneys to
handle cases the likes of which you have presented. The *essence* of my ques-
tions was your response containing:

.282> In the case of the outer not having malicious intent or prior 
.282> knowledge of a falsehood, I think that you have to slap other parties 
.282> for restitution of wrong doing.  Kind of a novel idea, huh?  Holding 
.282>the discriminators responsible for the discrimination.

Perhaps restitution was the wrong word.  I should have used something along
the lines of "punitive damages" charged against those who were responsible
for outing a person who was not homosexual/gay.

Holding the discriminators responsible for the discrimination?  Surely.

I can understand, respect, and, appreciate your reluctance to continue this
note for it is probably a very emotional topic .. therefore ... I would
like to solicit the input of other readers with respect to the following
incident.

The individual (civilian) who was instrumental in preventing a deadly
attack on (then) President Gerald Ford received a great deal of publicity.
He was  United States Marine, decorated for combat .... all the attendant
accolades.  He was also homosexual.  The gay "community" decided that it
would be in the best interest of <insert whatever> that his sexual orientation
be brought to the forefront .. perhaps that was more important than his
accomplishments.  I don't know.

As might be expected, this created some mental anguish for the individual.
Sure, there was additional publicity, and, some "discrimination".  He could
no longer be just an individual who saved the President's life.  The gay
community thought it more important that he be a HOMOSEXUAL individual that
saved the President's life.

In time, he started drinking a little more, and, a little more... I can
identify with that .. I've been known to drown my sorrows in a beer or twenty.

Well, to make a long story short ... he ended up by putting the muzzle of a
.45 between his eyes and pulling the trigger.  The M1911A1 is a formidable
weapon and it did it's job...quite well.

"..holding the discriminators responsible for the discrimination..." seems
mute to me.  "Restitution"?  To what end?  Responsibility?  Well, in my mind,
take a *wild* guess.

Have there been others?  Probably.  Will there be more?  Probably.  Is it
worth it to the gay ... community?  Damned if I know. I could only guess.

Oh well ... some live .. some die.  I cannot help but recall W.H. Auden:
		
		"To save your world you asked this man to die:
		Would this man, could he see you now, ask why?"

Jerry

>I can understand, respect, and, appreciate your reluctance to continue this
>note for it is probably a very emotional topic .. therefore ... I would
>like to solicit the input of other readers with respect to the following
>incident.

Emotion has little to do with my decision.  I have some work that is 
piling up.

>The individual (civilian) who was instrumental in preventing a deadly
>attack on (then) President Gerald Ford received a great deal of publicity.
>He was  United States Marine, decorated for combat .... all the attendant
>accolades.  He was also homosexual.  The gay "community" decided that it
>would be in the best interest of <insert whatever> that his sexual orientation
>be brought to the forefront .. perhaps that was more important than his
>accomplishments.  I don't know.    ....

To the best of my knowledge, this is not accurate.  First, this 
happened before "outing" was even a concept in the gay community.  
Second, it was the heterosexual press who revealed his sexuality, not 
the gay press (I'm prepared to be wrong on this, but I will check).  
Third, even if a gay newspaper did reveal his sexuality, it is 
completely inaccurate to say "the gay 'community' decided."  The gay 
community has no President, has no method of voting, and does not move 
in unison or as a monolith.  (For instance, I am a member of the gay 
community, and I don't remember having a vote as to whether this guy 
should have been outed.)

Lastly, if the outcome of people's sexual orientation being made 
public varies to a huge extent, is it logical to pin 100% of the 
responsibility on the out-er without any proof of mailicious intent or 
knowledge of misinformation?  For example, after they were outed by 
the police and by congress, Gerry Studds and Robert Bauman saw vast 
improvements in their lives.  Studds' health improved, stopped 
pursuing Pages, and, in general reports that he is a lot happier now 
than when he was in the closet.  Bauman, although he lost his seat in 
Congress, is a member of a reputable law firm and has published a 
best-selling book, in which, he states that he has his alcoholism 
under control and no longer has sex with hookers.  Although he wasn't 
outed by other people, Barney Frank also reports an improvement in 
health (look at pictures of him from the early eighties), no longer 
having sex with hookers, and the addition of a loving partner in his 
life.

So when people are outed and discrimination happens, some people 
commit suicide, some people get by, and some people thrive.  My
conclusion: Outing does not automatically ruin lives.  In fact, I
would bet that, out of all the people who have been outed in the last
5 years, more have thrived happily than committed suicide. 


							--Gerry

.284> ...is it logical to pin 100% of the responsibility on the out-er
.284> without any proof of mailicious intent or  knowledge of misinformation?

There may have been ZERO "malicious intent or knowledge of misinformation"
in the act of outing this individual.  The fact of the matter remains, had
he NOT been outed .. he may well be alive today.  I don't know.

.284> So when people are outed and discrimination happens, some people 
.284> commit suicide, some people get by, and some people thrive.

My concern is for those who die.  Knowing that suicide is a very *real*
possibility, perhaps the advantages outing and those who "thrive" outweigh
the disadvantage of having a few die in the process?  A matter of priorities?

.284> My conclusion: Outing does not automatically ruin lives.

No, and I don't believe that there was any implication of such.

.284> In fact, I would bet that, out of all the people who have been outed
.284> in the last 5 years, more have thrived happily than committed suicide. 

Possibly.  I don't think that we'll really know.  The dead have no voice in
this matter.

Jerry

Uncle!

.286>...either Jerry, or Gerry
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Sounds like a comedy team to me...Idea!  Gerry, I play the piano, if you
    can do a little soft-shoe ... we can possibly supplement our income on
    the weekends...:-)

    .286>... has to win and the other lose.

    The only time people lose is when they stop talking.  Other than that,
    everybody wins.

    Bubba

>    .286>... has to win and the other lose.
>
>    The only time people lose is when they stop talking.  

Well, unless the person has nothing else new to say, right?  ("Say 
something once, why say it again???")

Soft-shoe, eh?  Can I have some time to practice, first?

					--GerryOfJerryAndGerry