OUTING. who's fair game?

[TurkeyWithaSunburn]

Outing, not good in general. That person in Hollywood won't really have any effect on me.

Exposing hypocrisy in politicians (Sen. Larry Craig) and preachers (Ted Haggard) is more acceptable.

At least that's my take on it.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

DC_DEEP as usual, you are full of crap. Outing a politician, movie star, etcetera has nothing to do with child molesters and pervs.

 

[Xcuze]

there is no such thing as fair game when it comes to someones personal beliefs if should be up to them. I hate it when you have to listen to someone talk about somebody else no matter the subject. I totally believe the parable he without sin.

But Deno, what about hypocrite politicians or your sisters husband who's hitting on you? Surely there are extreme circumstances when someone needs to be exposed?

 

[DC_DEEP]

there is no such thing as fair game when it comes to someones personal beliefs if should be up to them. I hate it when you have to listen to someone talk about somebody else no matter the subject. I totally believe the parable he without sin.

But you see, that is the point - the hypocrite has already cast the first stone.

DC_DEEP as usual, you are full of crap. Outing a politician, movie star, etcetera has nothing to do with child molesters and pervs.

hootie, as usual, you are full of crap. Go back and actually read what was in my post, then go fuck yourself.

 

[Deno]

well in that case I would say talk to your sister, as far as the important figure head you'd better have you facts straight.

Gays should not out gays, is it not bad enough for gays to put up with the shit homophobs deal out, what, now you have to be afraid to confide in a gay person too.

 

[2322]

I respect the rights of other people to live their lives as they choose, but I demand the same respect from them. This means that if a public official acts to limit my freedoms or treats me as a second-class citizen, they've started it, and in doing so, forfeit the respect I had offered them.

My thoughts precisely. Well-stated.

 

[marleyisalegend]

It's NEVER your right to out anyone. Defamation aside, its morally reprehensible to be so self-righteous to make yourself worthy of doing something like this.

EDIT: If the person is using their "down-low" status to abuse or mislead someone EG they have a girlfriend but sleep with men on the side, out them immediately and spare us a few more innocent HIV cases.

 

[Bbucko]

It's NEVER your right to out anyone. Defamation aside, its morally reprehensible to be so self-righteous to make yourself worthy of doing something like this.

EDIT: If the person is using their "down-low" status to abuse or mislead someone EG they have a girlfriend but sleep with men on the side, out them immediately and spare us a few more innocent HIV cases.

There's no such thing as an "innocent HIV case" unless you believe that there are also "guilty" or "deserving" HIV cases.

FWIW, I agree with the majority on this board. People who make their living demonizing gays and lesbians (me, my friends and family) are fair game, but it really doesn't matter to me at all whether some pop singer or movie star is straight or gay.

 

[DC_DEEP]

It's NEVER your right to out anyone. Defamation aside, its morally reprehensible to be so self-righteous to make yourself worthy of doing something like this.

Is it morally reprehensible for a politician to be getting his ass reamed by his boyfriend (that his wife doesn't know about) after he's spent a hard day at work crafting his latest anti-gay legislation? And is it morally reprehensible to say nothing if you know something like that is going on?

Is it morally reprehensible to say, "Hey, this preacher is doing the very things he's telling you are mortal sins"?? Is it morally reprehensible to tell parishoners that he's taking their tithes and using that money to buy gay hookers and crystal meth, all the while preaching to them that homosexuality is wrong?

 

[marleyisalegend]

There's no such thing as an "innocent HIV case" unless you believe that there are also "guilty" or "deserving" HIV cases.

FWIW, I agree with the majority on this board. People who make their living demonizing gays and lesbians (me, my friends and family) are fair game, but it really doesn't matter to me at all whether some pop singer or movie star is straight or gay.

There are DOZENS of "innocent HIV cases." For instance, a wife trying to get pregnant by her husband and doesn't know he's been fucking men since before they were married. If he tells her that he's bisexual and sleeps with men, its up to her to be precautions but being forthcoming isn't a "downlow" virtue. Many people (erroneously or not) drop all precuations when they THINK or are MANIPULATED TO BELIEVE they're in a monogomous relationship.

 

[mindseye]

They've started it sounds just like kids on a play ground. Peeps could learn a lot from Martin Luther King, and Gandhi. Society will respond in compassion to people who peacefully fight for their rights. Name calling, and trying to mess up peoples lives tends to led to backlash.

Not a fair comparison. Being Black or Indian isn't a trait that one can hide in the closet. There were African-Americans who opposed the struggle for civil rights, and King was able to confront them as equals without "outing them".

By not being able to hide their race, the size of the African-American struggle for civil rights was never in doubt; the population of India was obviously even greater. Gay people who hide in the closet are falsifying our numbers, making us appear as a smaller minority than we actually are. Neither King nor Gandhi had to overcome this particular obstacle, and so it's unfair to suggest that since they didn't out people, we shouldn't either.

You conclude with, "trying to mess up peoples lives tends to led to backlash". How do you justify labeling outing as "messing up peoples lives" but not the anti-equality civil actions that preceded the outing?

 

[Bbucko]

There are DOZENS of "innocent HIV cases." For instance, a wife trying to get pregnant by her husband and doesn't know he's been fucking men since before they were married. If he tells her that he's bisexual and sleeps with men, its up to her to be precautions but being forthcoming isn't a "downlow" virtue. Many people (erroneously or not) drop all precuations when they THINK or are MANIPULATED TO BELIEVE they're in a monogomous relationship.

No, Marls, you're missing the bigger picture, and you're bought into a dichotomy that simply does not exist.

No one "deserves' to be infected with HIV, regardless of his/her lifestyle. It's a virus, not a judgment from God.

 

[marleyisalegend]

No, Marls, you're missing the bigger picture, and you're bought into a dichotomy that simply does not exist.

No one "deserves' to be infected with HIV, regardless of his/her lifestyle. It's a virus, not a judgment from God.

I don't think I understand what we're talking about. I never implied that anyone deserved it. Are you sure you read my post thoroughly? I said outing people spares us a few HIV cases because the wife now knows her husband is sleeping with men and can therefore choose to act accordingly. I said men remaining on the downlow spread the disease because their lovers are offered a false sense of security and false monogamy.

 

[Bbucko]

I don't think I understand what we're talking about. I never implied that anyone deserved it. Are you sure you read my post thoroughly? I said outing people spares us a few HIV cases because the wife now knows her husband is sleeping with men and can therefore choose to act accordingly. I said men remaining on the downlow spread the disease because their lovers are offered a false sense of security and false monogamy.

Whenever I hear about "innocent" cases of HIV infection, my mind goes to the opposite. If there's innocence in the world (which I don't deny), then there must also be guilt.

Not everyone can be innocent all the time. It's a very fragile state to be in. And the minute someone loses his/her innocence, they become something else.

I am not lessening the tragedy of a wife whose husband is on the downlow and gets infected. What I'm saying is that EVERY infection is a tragedy. There are no innocent infections because there are no guilty infections. They're all just infections.

And whether you think so or not, separating the infected into "innocent" and "something else" (which is the implication) just increases the stigma people living with HIV deals with every day.

 

[naughty]

Here I thought you were suggesting a great but LPSG Huggles fest . To quote our former first lady here in the US, JUST SAY NO!

 

[marleyisalegend]

Whenever I hear about "innocent" cases of HIV infection, my mind goes to the opposite. If there's innocence in the world (which I don't deny), then there must also be guilt.

Not everyone can be innocent all the time. It's a very fragile state to be in. And the minute someone loses his/her innocence, they become something else.

I am not lessening the tragedy of a wife whose husband is on the downlow and gets infected. What I'm saying is that EVERY infection is a tragedy. There are no innocent infections because there are no guilty infections. They're all just infections.

And whether you think so or not, separating the infected into "innocent" and "something else" (which is the implication) just increases the stigma people living with HIV deals with every day.

I certainly hold no stigma against HIV, having several friends who are positive and watching my aunt die from AIDS related complications. Don't be afraid to come onto my side of the fence, it seems as if you're taking a hands-off, babyish approach. The husband who's deceiving his wife and spreading the disease may not be textbook "guilty" but he's clearly irresponsible and REsponsible for the spreading of the disease. It's not as easy as guilty/innocent infections, but there are people out there who are DIRECTLY spreading the disease by employing deception and poor decision-making.

 

[ZOS23xy]

If the peoples in this world were far more honest and open there wouldn't be an issue of outing. It would be a non issue.

The vast majority of the population rely on some antique goat herder's manual for guidance which spells out survival skills for the first century AD, where things were written out of fear and ignorance and have only a slight bearing to the world of today.

So because the moral judgement of those vast long gone times is still prevalent today, held in high value, the idea of "outing" is wrong.

 

[marleyisalegend]

If the peoples in this world were far more honest and open there wouldn't be an issue of outing. It would be a non issue.

The vast majority of the population rely on some antique goat herder's manual for guidance which spells out survival skills for the first century AD, where things were written out of fear and ignorance and have only a slight bearing to the world of today.

So because the moral judgement of those vast long gone times is still prevalent today, held in high value, the idea of "outing" is wrong.

AMEN.

 

[ZOS23xy]

No, Marls, you're missing the bigger picture, and you're bought into a dichotomy that simply does not exist.

No one "deserves' to be infected with HIV, regardless of his/her lifestyle. It's a virus, not a judgment from God.

I can gather what Marley is trying to say.

There have been a few lawsuits and cases where someone had successfully sued someone for giving them AIDS/HIV. Moral judgement---no. Legal. Yes.

People claiming to be disease free and give a disease to someone can be sued in a court of law.

A Fact.

 

[marleyisalegend]

I can gather what Marley is trying to say.

There have been a few lawsuits and cases where someone had successfully sued someone for giving them AIDS/HIV. Moral judgement---no. Legal. Yes.

People claiming to be disease free and give a disease to someone can be sued in a court of law.

A Fact.

VERY True. A college kid in Boston who was having unprotected sex with girls and not divulging his status was jailed. Until he was caught a (insert health organization with an acronym moniker) road around his town blasting through a loud speaker that he was infected and not telling people. I share sympathy for anyone living with AIDS, but that doesn't mean that some of them not only brought it on themselves, but passed it on to others unintentionally AND intentionally. Jonathan Perry (who is a fucking skank-whore anyway) was purposefully infected by someone who "didn't want Jonathan to be with anyone else." An episode of cops featured the arrest of a prostitute who was intentionally spreading the disease to men. She looked dead into the camera and said something along the lines of "I'm going to hell and taking as many men as I can with me." Even in these cases I offer sympathy because I can imagine being mad at the world to find yourself with this disease, but that doesn't take away from the fact that their poor behavior is costing OTHER PEOPLE their lives through use of deception.