He's 18. He's not a public, elected official, he works for one. Here's Dan Savage's judgment:
outing is brutal and it should be reserved for brutes.Tyler Whitney qualifies.
Oh, really Dan? Who made you Judge, Jury and Executioner? The problem I have with outing is that is mob rule. When the mob -- left wing gay activists in this case -- decides that someone works for the wrong person or wrong cause, it becomes okay to punish them "brutally" as Savage says.
As a matter of practicality, what good comes from outing? Will Tancredo suddenly yell "Eureka!" and sign up to march in next year's Pride parade with a tee shirt saying "I Love my Gay Staffer?"
No -- outing's purpose is to punish those the mob wishes to hurt. Want proof -- read the comments on Savage's column about outing the kid. Here's one:
I hate to say it, but I hope the boy gets a taste of the AIDS. That more than anything will force him to face the hatemongers he has encouraged among his Right-Wing clique. As soon as he sero-converts, they will cut him off on the spot.
There's more like that. Does this really advance the cause of gay rights?
This kid may be a self-loathing bigoted asshole, as some claim. Or he may just be a confused scared kid raised in a conservative family who doesn't know how to live his life as a an gay man -- yet. I sure as hell didn't at 18.
If you abhor the values his boss promotes, fight those values. If we succeed in destroying an 18 year old kid we've accomplished nothing but to give into our own anger and undermine the notion that someone shouldn't be punished because of who they are.
16 comments:
Tyler Whitney is not a hateful person. I'm so sick of these attacks. Like many gay people, he doesn't support homosexual militancy - big whoop. Not every gay person has to sign onto an agenda of special rights.
It is those who flaunt their lifestyle and force others to accept them that are causing all the problems for the rest of us. I live in Massachusetts and right now the same freaks as Dan Savage and Signorile are whipping up a lot of trouble here by trying to change the institution of marriage. Why can't some of us just live quiet lives of faith and respect traditional society?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850212/posts
That is disgusting. Thank you for sharing this.
I have not put a ton of thought into the whole "outing" thing. To me, you cannot be outed unless you are doing something that shows you are a homosexual. For example, going to a gay bar or engaging in gay sex. Well frankly, if you go to a gay bar because you are gay and someone points this out as evidence to the fact you are gay, really what has been done other than tell the truth? If Tyler Whitney (and honestly I haven't followed this so know nothing about him) didn't want to be known as "gay", then he and all the other closeted who work anywhere and everywhere should probably avoide going to gay bars or engaging in gay sex. Either you're in the closet or you ain't and screwing around with men means you're gay and opens you up to the possibility of being publicly known as gay.
It's time people stopped being ashamed of being gay frankly. Those who support allowing politicians and their cohorts to stay in the closet support the notion there is a good reason to stay in the closet. And if you're gay and doing that, then that's simply sad. You don't have to be a militant fag to be a proud one who isn't ashamed of who you are. I can't defend or speak out for someone who is willing to hide who they are for a job. What kind of person does that? I can understand being young and confused. But if you don't want to be "outed" because it terrifies you so much, don't do anything to get yourself outed. While I myself don't see any use in "outing" someone, I can't say I feel bad if the truth comes out. Because if you're ashamed of something, you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
I agree to out" someone is a vile contemptuous effort of violence. There are aspects of my professional life that I have to be very cautious of how "out" I am as it may result in violence, or my losing my job. Neither of which I would appreciate.
I see being either too far right, or left as an insult to humanity.
Regarding Bishop's post...wow. So far off the point I was trying to make. And, just to be clear (as anyone who's read this blog should know already), I don't think marriage equality is a special right or flaunting a "lifestyle." Nor do I think someone who has political beliefs abhorant to me should be punished...which is what outing seeks to do.
What's totally bizarre is that the gay Republicans are totally silent about the fact that it was Tyler's own friend at "Conservative Michigan Dossier" who first wrote about Tyler going to DC to party with other gay men. Yet all you hear from the Log Kabin creeps is shrill ranting and raving about those "evil, nasty liberal fags".
Even more astounding is the fact that Tyler had consciously chosen to come out and openly flaunt his lifestyle thus instantly ending his military eligibility. At these critical times during the 'battle of our generation' the military is desperate for young Republican patriots. Why do homosexual Republicans prioritize their bedroom lifestyle as more important than the security and defense of our nation? He could have assisted the all important GWOT, yet he chose to publicly announce his homosexuality. Why do gay Republicans hate this nation and our freedoms? FREEDOM IS *NOT* FREE.
I'm not familiar with this particular issue, and I'm not sure where I stand on the whole 'outing' thing. When it comes to supporting or denying gay rights by closeted individuals, I wouldn't say I'm completely opposed to outing lawmakers.
Let's say a lawmaker is vociferously supporting a law that would penalize adulterors. Then we find out he himself has committed adultery a few times. Is it not valid to reveal his past indiscretions to show his hypocrisy? What about people championing 'family values' who have had divorces and affairs? Isn't it valid to reveal their indiscretions? If a lawmaker is shooting down global warming and energy conservation but getting paid on the side by oil and car lobbies, isn't it valid to reveal these affairs?
In all cases, I think 'outing' the hypocrisy will help hold the lawmakers accountable. So if a closeted lawmaker is shooting down gay rights, isn't there validity to revealing his orientation?
We're talking about an 18 year old staffer here.
18. Year. old. staffer.
Who, by the way, was starting to come out on his own. Since then gay people have said things like they wished he'd get AIDS, criticized his personality, trashed his music choices and fashion choices as well as his personal appearance. Happy Gay Pride, Tyler.
I understand you're lumping everything under the "hypocrisy" banner -- but being gay is not the moral wrong that adultry is. One hides adultry because it's wrong. One hides one's homosexuality because in this world you can be killed or injuried or discriminated against because of it. The two are not morally equivilent.
The other problem I have with outing is -- who decides what -- to use your blanket term "gay rights" -- really is?
What pieces of legislation would you out someone over? Would you out a politician who opposes Hate Crimes legislation? When there are perfectly justifiable reasons to not be in favor of it (such as stated by out gay law professor Dale Carpenter).
Plain and simple, outing is rule by mob.
I do think coming out of the closet for gay men and women is a moral imperative. And I do get impatient with people my age or older who remain hidden. But I try to temper that with an understanding of the risks of being out. It's not my choice to make for someone else.
>>What's totally bizarre is that the gay Republicans are totally silent about the fact that it was Tyler's own friend at "Conservative Michigan Dossier" who first wrote about Tyler going to DC to party with other gay men.
There's only one explanation for it: they did the outing themselves so they could blame the liberals. Those Kabin creeps are some real loser creeps, there is nothing they won't do.
I'm glad this whole incident has come back to bite them in the ass.
Dan Savage is an ass for outing this kid. Homosexual AIDS act-up types are still trying to force their views on everyone. Sorry, but a lot of us can see through your perverted narcissism.
Tyler Whitney: "SMASH LEFT WING SCUM"
Mobs form when noble people refuse to tell obnoxious, self-serving jerks to shut up. The level of critic-muzzling that the left engages in is their real source of power (much like the religious right in the GOP). It's all that any gang of thugs needs, no matter what end of the spectrum they crawl out of.
"To me, you cannot be outed unless you are doing something that shows you are a homosexual. For example, going to a gay bar or engaging in gay sex."
Remember when you were in high school? I didn't know any guys who identified as heterosexual until they actually had sex with a girl. Same thing in junior high. If you masturbate to a playboy or pictures of naked women, that has nothing to do with your orientation. It is the same with Clergy. If they are celibate but dream about men, they are not homosexual. Our sexual orientation is just a data point reflecting the causation of specific sex partners we have had.
I have known a lot of Chritian guys who remain celibate until their late 20's when they get married. If you ask them at age 18 or 19, they will tell you they are absolutely not heterosexual because they have not had sex with a woman yet.
So Tyler Whitney is far from gay. There is no such thing as a gay teen unless they have actually acted on it with another guy, masturbation doesn't count.
What's with the hypocrisy from the right?
Exposing who a heterosexual sleeps with is just reporting or exposing adultery if that is indeed the case.
However, exposing who a homosexual sleeps with is 'outing'? I didn't realize you folks loved the double standard that much.
If you want equality, you need to start treating yourself and talking about yourself like you're equal. Calling the exposure of heteros as reporting and calling the exposure of homos as outing is a double standard and needs to stop.
The left's idiocy in this is that they think 'outing' someone will work - however, if you have any self-respect and forethought, you can avoid this. If you were an idiot who worked for a homophobe, well then, you put yourself in the situation where lefties can indirectly hurt you. From the reports on this story, Tancredo doesn't seem to have any problem with his staffer being gay, so what exactly did the left accomplish?
And the idiot who wished AIDS on him is a horrible person, but it is equally stupid as a blogger to automatically associate 1 bad person with the left - not only does that make you stupid, it makes it seem that you're more interested in using this story to bash lefties than genuinely being concerned for the kid. So way to go - you shot yourself in the foot.
sorry erin,
I was gay long before my first sexual experience with another man.
you are trying to define sexual orientation as behavior based and not an intrinsic part of one's personality. isn't going to wash. straight people are straight long before they have sex with someone of the opposite gender - their sexual orientation existed prior to the behavior. ditto for gays and lesbians.
far too many peer reviewed empirical scientific studies stand against the 'orientation is defined by behavior' nonsense.
Although I am sure if you go look through some "creation science" journals you can find some crackpot who disagrees with the overwhelming scientific consensus. I'll be happy to snicker at your education if you try to quote them, though.
Dennis --
Spot-on. Thank you.
Scott
Autrey, you are an idiot! The left may be uniform in their emotional self hating liberalism, but the right is very diverse.
Whitney is not pro war. As a matter of fact he is very outspoken against the war.
Maybe you should sign up to fight the towel heads instead of posting mildly retarted comments.
Good post Scott!
Post a Comment