*makes popcorn*

This is gonna be gooooooooood.

They better have a lot of decently compelling evidence or they're getting their asses sued off. Somewhere, a lawyer is salivating over this.

I am probably in the gay-minority here, but outing is wrong for any reason, regardless of how much the target of the outing is a spineless, self-righteous, deluded bastard.

As does my paper. The day they flip on that stance is the day I walk out.

vartian: I am probably in the gay-minority here, but outing is wrong for any reason, regardless of how much the target of the outing is a spineless, self-righteous, deluded bastard.

All these people are 'out' in the sense that the filmmaker appears to just be piecing together old news stories as a sort of collage of hypocrisy.

TFA "They have, without exception, been on the wrong side of history regarding our civil rights."

I think I remember this guy, or someone a lot like him. He was threatening to out politicians who were voting against gay rights. (Wouldn't out them if they changed their stance, of course). If I remember right, he claimed to have been a high-class gay prostitute or to be connected to one.

I thought it was extortion then, and I'm pretty sure it's extortion here, too.

ninjakirby:
[bears repeating]

Ha ha

ninjakirby: vartian: I am probably in the gay-minority here, but outing is wrong for any reason, regardless of how much the target of the outing is a spineless, self-righteous, deluded bastard.

All these people are 'out' in the sense that the filmmaker appears to just be piecing together old news stories as a sort of collage of hypocrisy.

Oh, no don't get me wrong, I have seen the movie and I can confirm that he does indeed simply take publicly available information and draw his conclusions from that. I have no issue with that as a film premise. Or for a blogger, for that matter.

I just want our paper to stay out of it. Though we did cover the premier in DC; I am fine with that, I just don't want us to start a bunch of witch hunts.

I guessed the writer and all you libs missed the memo. Republicans believe in FAMILY values. So for this article to have any basis, it means they are NOT family values crusaders, and if that isn't true, NOTHING can be true!!!

That's how this works people. Get it together.

Look, I see the man's point, but this sh*t is complicated.

Not that my opinion means anything, but I think someone's personal life (of this nature, anyway) is completely irrelevant to the legislation they propose.

Argue successfully against the legislation. It should be enough that they don't seem to care about equal rights. Beat them the right way.

Unless what they do is illegal, it just shouldn't matter.

"If people have made lifestyle decisions they've kept private, then the makers of this video are showing the utmost contempt for the people who have made the sacrifice of being in public office," he said. "This flies in the face of an American tradition - that is, that people's personal lives are supposed to be just that."

So if people's private lives are private, why is the government involved in the gay marriage debate?

Kirby Dick, the film's director, told The Chronicle on Thursday that "it's not only the right thing to do, it's the responsibility of journalists and filmmakers to report on hypocrisy wherever they see it."


First of all, unless someone comes out and publicly declares for themselves that they are homosexual, I don't believe any rumor or innuendo for a minute. Plus, I could care less if they are even if they're politicians and don't legislate to their own benefit.

Second of all, there's puh-lenty of 'hypocrisy' to go around on the Democrat side of things that is NOT rumor or innuendo,or even outright lies for that matter, that Mr. Dick has not made a theater showing documentary about and he never has, and he probably never ever will. Why would he? It would be counter productive.

Once again, more fully partisan bullcrap with a self-serving agenda done by some dude who would have people believe he is some kind of a courageous journalistic filmmaker hero when in actuality he simply proves that there is, in fact, a gay agenda and he'll stoop as low as he has to and resort to the loathesome tactic of rumor and innuendo in an effort to advance it.

I don't care if they're right or left, Republican or Democrat, you just don't go around making accusations about people's sexuality based on rumor or innuendo or outright lies, especially on the scale of movie theaters and potentially television, in order to damage your targets credibility, livelihood, and their life in general because you disgaree with their stance on issues. It is beneath despicable.

It's a terrible thing to promote anti-gay legislation whether you're gay or straight. It's exceptionally hypocritical to be gay and to do it.

But two wrongs don't make a right. Extortion or forced outing isn't the solution, in my opinion. I don't know what is, but it does a disservice to the LGBT community.

slayer199: So if people's private lives are private, why is the government involved in the gay marriage debate?

A big, gay, hairy THIS!

While extreme, I think that this needs to be done.

Gay people don't bother me.

Gay people who hide their gayness and discriminate against other gay people *do* bother me.

Stereotypes are bad. Wait...what?

At least they can't reproduce

I'm against hypocrisy in so many ways, but I don't know where I stand on this guy. He's a douche and whatnot, but he has a point. Don't anyone out me, or I'll kick them in half-ninja style

Here's a link on an interview with him. He also targets some dems.

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2009/05/doug-mckelway-is-not-gay.html (new window)

I love teh Ghey.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/ghey-33917.jpg

something was wrong with that...the pic and link didn't work. just go to the first one.

Chariset: ninjakirby:
[bears repeating]

Ha ha

...

...

...

I'll be in my bunk.

No, I have to agree with vartian. I got outed to some friends by someone who wanted to hurt me and it was devastating to me. It hurt like no other knife I've ever felt. and I've actually been stabbed with a real knife once (long story).

It's cruel, even if they are the biggest jackasses in the world IMHO.

I'm not sure which side of this argument makes me angrier: The hypocrites campaigning against the rights I've been fighting for, or the idiots who think that outing them is an acceptable response.

I do see the irony that people state "Their private lives should be kept private!" when in fact they're doing their best to legislate into my private life, but still...

vartian: I am probably in the gay-minority here, but outing is wrong for any reason, regardless of how much the target of the outing is a spineless, self-righteous, deluded bastard.

As does my paper. The day they flip on that stance is the day I walk out.

Dude, these people are actively seeking to deny equal protection to people based solely on their sexual orientation. While being a part of that orientation! They should be outed, not for being gay but for being hypocritical and cowardly.

And besides, being outed for being gay is only a problem if being gay is a problem. I, for one, am not and never will be able to accept a persons nature or lifestyle or choice as a problem when it does not impact other people.

Apparently homosexuality is like a cult where dissent is not allowed. If you join you must accept all your masters' teachings. If you let another guy touch your penis you must support government subsidies. You must support the prescribed side in the next budget debate. And if you don't you are a traitor to your orientation.

FTFA: But Republican officials - noting that the film's targets are limited mostly to Republican politicians - question whether "Outrage" is merely a veiled partisan effort.


Emphasis on "mostly".

Please point me to a closeted Democrat actively campaigning against gay rights and then you'll have a little strength behind this argument.

I won't argue that all politicians are usually hypocritical in some way, but this particular brand of hypocrisy is pretty much limited to the Republican party.

Politicians are public figures. If they happen to be sekrit homos yet actively promoting anti-gay legislation they are fair game for any activist to out them.

They don't all have to be outed but if they're claiming their agenda of intolerance is really their Christian values they especially deserve to be outed.

ZAZ: Apparently homosexuality is like a cult where dissent is not allowed. If you join you must accept all your masters' teachings. If you let another guy touch your penis you must support government subsidies. You must support the prescribed side in the next budget debate. And if you don't you are a traitor to your orientation.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or if you're just really stupid.

Imagine if, back during women's suffrage, a woman dressed up like a man, was elected to office, and actively campaigned against women's rights. I could imagine that women would have wanted her to be "outed" as a woman.

The difference here is that unfortunately, we still live in a society where you can be negatively impacted by not being heteronormative. That's why I can't agree with the outing of these politicians.

I'm finding it pretty hard to muster any sympathy for anti-gay crusading closet cases.

Aurric: I'm not sure if you're being serious trolling or if you're just really stupid.

FTFM

Aurric: FTFA: But Republican officials - noting that the film's targets are limited mostly to Republican politicians - question whether "Outrage" is merely a veiled partisan effort.


Emphasis on "mostly".

Please point me to a closeted Democrat actively campaigning against gay rights and then you'll have a little strength behind this argument.

I won't argue that all politicians are usually hypocritical in some way, but this particular brand of hypocrisy is pretty much limited to the Republican party.

yes, this. I'm all for smaller, less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility (aren't those the values that the Republican party supposedly hold?) but the Republican party seems to have been taken over by religious nutjobs who want to legislate their particular brand of morality for all of us.

How someone who practices the very acts that these nutjobs are trying to outlaw can support said nutjobs is incomprehensible to me. The only explanation that I can come up with is that power and some warped definition of "success" are more important to these people than integrity and fairness.

/not gay
//don't care if you are
///as long as you don't want me to do anything with your penis we'll get along fine

I've been waiting for this thread since I heard of this movie.

rathoth:

Dude, these people are actively seeking to deny equal protection to people based solely on their sexual orientation. While being a part of that orientation! They should be outed, not for being gay but for being hypocritical and cowardly.

And besides, being outed for being gay is only a problem if being gay is a problem. I, for one, am not and never will be able to accept a persons nature or lifestyle or choice as a problem when it does not impact other people.

True enough, but there is another edge to that sword: if you force-out someone, then the act of being out, of even being gay in the first place, is seen as a negative. As if they have something to hide.

I know they are asshole hypocrites. I know they are purposely and maliciously working against the interests of those in their exact same situation. But I still cannot abide it.

The act of coming out is a deeply personal experience that everyone should be able to experience at their own pace. Even these dicks.

And besides, force-outing someone is just going to either A) get them fired or voted out by people who cannot tolerate gays or B) harden the target to be even more aggressive in their anti-gay voting, either out of spite or to ensure they keep their position. There is nothing to be gained from it, and the entire community looks like it went on a witch-hunt.

FTFA: "But Republican officials - noting that the film's targets are limited mostly to Republican politicians - question whether "Outrage" is merely a veiled partisan effort."

Or... it's because there are more Republican hypocrites WTR gay rights than in other parties?

Aurric: ZAZ: Apparently homosexuality is like a cult where dissent is not allowed. If you join you must accept all your masters' teachings. If you let another guy touch your penis you must support government subsidies. You must support the prescribed side in the next budget debate. And if you don't you are a traitor to your orientation.

I'm not sure if you're being serious or if you're just really stupid.

Imagine if, back during women's suffrage, a woman dressed up like a man, was elected to office, and actively campaigned against women's rights. I could imagine that women would have wanted her to be "outed" as a woman.

The difference here is that unfortunately, we still live in a society where you can be negatively impacted by not being heteronormative. That's why I can't agree with the outing of these politicians.

Well, if she *actively campaigned against women's rights* she'd be in the exact same situation that we are discussing, and a flaming hypocrite besides.

But you know what really bothers me about this? It is just so petty.

We are going to win because our cause is righteous. The rights and respect I seek have always been mine; there are simply those who would seek to deny me these rights. They will loose that fight, and when they do, I want them to loose on the issues, not because we chipped away at their numbers by force-outing the hypocrites.

The only question that I have is, is George W. Bush on that list yet?

You know he is.... come on.... Isn't it like obvious.

ZAZ: Apparently homosexuality is like a cult where dissent is not allowed. If you join you must accept all your masters' teachings. If you let another guy touch your penis you must support government subsidies. You must support the prescribed side in the next budget debate. And if you don't you are a traitor to your orientation.

Well, we were having a nice little discussion here before ZAZ walked in and retard-conservative-vomited all over the place.

Nice going, spaZAZ.

just_dis_guy: While extreme, I think that this needs to be done.

Gay people don't bother me.

Gay people who hide their gayness and discriminate against other gay people *do* bother me.

Gay people don't bother me.

Gay people, and other minorities, who want to destroy multi-thousand year old institutions, and build a set of special privileges for themselves do.

Nobody is attacking gheys. Gheys are attacking Christianity. Just stick to buggering each other in public parks at night and don't pretend your mental illness is normal.

Little.Alex:
Gay people, and other minorities, who want to destroy multi-thousand year old institutions, and build a set of special privileges for themselves do.

Nobody is attacking gheys. Gheys are attacking Christianity. Just stick to buggering each other in public parks at night and don't pretend your mental illness is normal.

Oh, won't someone think of the poor Christians!

Go hide behind your bible, bigot.

SOLUTION:

Have the government stop recognizing marriage of any kind.

people can still have their religious "marriages", but as far as the government is concerned, they're single. same goes for the homosexual community.

Little.Alex: just_dis_guy: While extreme, I think that this needs to be done.

Gay people don't bother me.

Gay people who hide their gayness and discriminate against other gay people *do* bother me.

Gay people don't bother me.

Gay people, and other minorities, who want to destroy multi-thousand year old institutions, and build a set of special privileges for themselves do.

Nobody is attacking gheys. Gheys are attacking Christianity. Just stick to buggering each other in public parks at night and don't pretend your mental illness is normal.

I'm ASSuming you're trolling, but in case you're not, what exactly is it about things that people do to each other in the privacy of their own homes/hotel rooms/whatever that bothers you?

Sure, if gays are buggering each other in a public place, that is indecent and should be illegal, but the same can be said of heteros. So long as I don't have to see it or participate in it, I really don't. farking. care.

How is it "special privileges" to allow gay people to do what they do without interference from the government?

Is is a "special privilege" to allow hetero people to engage in oral sex? (remember, that was illegal in many places until very recently, and there's probably still some laws on the books.)

/sheesh

Would it not be possible that they like "gay sex" but understand that it is wrong and they don't agree that they should have the same rights as straight people.

Would this not be the same as using drugs and at the same time fighting to keep them illegal.

I believe it is a sin and no issue saying that is what I believe. I don't believe gays should have the same rights but nor do I believe what someone does in their bedroom is my business or the gov't business.

I don't care if a private company wants to give anyone who works for them the same benefits, for most jobs one should not be denied the right to work. equal housing no issues.

it is an issue that has been forced down our throats by the gay agenda and if you disagree you are treated like a criminal.

If some member of an invisible minority is in a position of power, and is keeping that position of power by helping oppress other members of their minority... hang 'em.

Now, how do you tell a hypocritical gay from a self-hating gay? It is possible to be both homosexual AND anti-gay simultaneously without hypocracy.

Once you can answer that question you can start outing these guys.

vartian: We are going to win because our cause is righteous. The rights and respect I seek have always been mine; there are simply those who would seek to deny me these rights. They will loose that fight, and when they do, I want them to loose on the issues, not because we chipped away at their numbers by force-outing the hypocrites

I've actually stopped arguing with people about gay rights.

When interracial marriage was legalized by in 1967, most surveys released indicated that, particularly in southern states, a popular vote would not have legalized it. If it hadn't been for that "activist" supreme court, mixed-race couples would not have been allowed to marry.

The political pendulum swings both ways. Right now, we have a distinctly more conservative supreme court, but as that pendulum sways left, I can almost guarantee you that gay marriage will eventually be legalized, regardless of the popular vote at the time.

We now look back on the people arguing so fervently against interracial marriage as out-of-touch bigots. I'm fairly confident that the future will vindicate my position, and that history will look back at today's opponents of same-sex marriage in the same manner.

It just shows what a bunch of fascist, militant nazis gay advocates have become. This film will probably have a more negative affect to their cause then positive. I can see a lot of people using these attacks on anyone who disagrees with them as un-American and justify their joining a Gay Hate Group. If the Black community did this, I can guarantee that the KKK would enjoy an increased membership. It was a smart move for the black community to drop it's efforts for Slavery Retribution which was having a negative affect on race relations.

Stay classy Gays.

The point of my last post being that I don't need to convince anyone to agree that I deserve equal rights.

That was genius, ninjakirby.

Waldo Pepper:

it is an issue that has been forced down our throats by the gay agenda and if you disagree you are treated like a criminal.

I see the exact same wording used time and time again for the ant-gay argument. Just blow a guy and get it over with; you people protest too much.

"I believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman"

Is Arnold a closet gay?

just_dis_guy: While extreme, I think that this needs to be done.

Gay people don't bother me.

Gay people who hide their gayness and discriminate against other gay people *do* bother me.

I'll go with this, but add "gay people who hide their gayness and exercise the legal authority to discriminate against other gay people *do* bother me."

Whether this guy is a douchenozzle or not, and he probably is one, he's on the side of right in this case, at least IMHO. The current restrictions/legal discriminations in effect against homosexuals are chillingly similar to the dark days of legalized, institutional discrimination based on skin color. Denying some fairly basic rights of the rest of our citizens (no marriage, no serving our military freely and openly) to a relatively unpopular minority is too similar to the old "separate but equal" nonsense we tolerated in this nation right through the 1950s. They may be separate, but they sure as hell aren't equal.

Gay people are not going to do a damned thing to the institution of marriage. Poor, capricious decision making and no-fault divorces have already dealt marriage a staggering, perhaps (in the long run) fatal blow. We straight people should be far more concerned about getting our own views about marriage "straight", and less concerned about a tiny fraction of people who simply want society to recognize that they are not 3/5th of a person.

Ed Koch is the best they can do? Seriously?

Aurric: The point of my last post being that I don't need to convince anyone to agree that I deserve equal rights.

Excellent point, but I work for a gay newspaper and live in DC...if I don't argue politics, I don't know what I would do with myself :)