What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
266 Comments
- inactive, on 04/28/2009, -18/+162Good. Name them. Shame them and take them down. It's one thing to be closeted. That's understandable, especially if your a rethug, but to actively support laws & legislation against the gay community. No ***** way. Name them. Shame them and take them down.
- Hetman, on 04/28/2009, -3/+73Old Joke: How can you tell when Mark Foley has read something from the Library of Congress? The pages will be bent over.
- publiclurker, on 04/28/2009, -3/+64Which is why these two faced hypocrites need to be outed. They are the ones trying to control what is going on in others bedrooms.
- acroyear2, on 04/28/2009, -2/+57I don't entirely agree. You're right about the invasion of privacy. You're right about the outers looking vengeful but much more than that will be accomplished. Good things will also come out of this. It's important for people to understand how the gay community isn't some abstract notion that only exists in San Francisco
- Firstdaughter, on 04/29/2009, -2/+54
Hypocrisy - it's what's for dinner... - MrColdheart, on 04/29/2009, -3/+46Nah it kinda sucks that a few good friends of mine don't have the same civil rights as me because of someone elses closeted hypocrisy.
Out them and shame them. - leatherscot, on 04/29/2009, -2/+41If they were purely closeted - I agree.
However if they are closeted AND publicly oppose gay rights issues - then they deserve the word 'hypocrite' tattooed on their forehead - mediablitz, on 04/29/2009, -1/+37"Social Conservatism" you should say.
Regular old Conservatism wants the government not telling you what to do with your private life. The christian wing nuts hijacked the term. - MrColdheart, on 04/29/2009, -3/+39How many more Conservatives are going to use invasion of privacy as a reason not to 'OUT' a closeted gay Politician who passes laws limiting the rights of gays?
If it wasn't for the passing laws thing I'd agree but sense when does a Politician in the public eye have a right to privacy when the story effects others?
Considering the types of stories the Conservatives on Digg submitted for 2 years before Obama won that's a big plate of hypocrisy. - tgjerusalem, on 04/29/2009, -1/+34If they're just a closeted private citizen, it's their business.
If they're a politician or activist, and they use their position of power to act against the rights and dignity of other queer people, it's not just their business anymore. They're public figures and their hypocrisy is severely damaging the lives of countless people. - lydecker, on 04/29/2009, -0/+31No specific person should ever be the image of a gay male in the media. Just like no specific person is ever the image of a straight male in the media. People need to start acknowledging that different sexual orientation is everywhere, and that includes in both good and bad people.
- Frankyfan3, on 04/29/2009, -3/+32I've never been that comfortable with people being outed as gay against their will.
But this, this is different.
They are not only closeted, but fighting to restrict their own rights, vilifying people who share similar traits, and denying the truth about themselves to their constituents who have an expectation of disclosure.
They deserve all the ridicule they get. - 0tis, on 04/29/2009, -1/+30Exactly - if a politician is gay, or even having an affair, that is their business. But they accept scrutiny as part of the job, and if they suddenly start lecturing on the sanctity of the family, that's when it becomes everyone's business.
- enki25, on 04/29/2009, -10/+39Being gay and ashamed is a critical piece of the Republican worldview.
- Echota, on 04/29/2009, -2/+31We all need to lay up a good stash of popcorn because we're going to need it .
This and the war crimes and everything else,it's going to be a loooong hot summer!
everybody bring their own beer! - JoeMondo, on 04/29/2009, -5/+31Telling the truth about people isn't McCarthyism.
- scottbaez, on 04/29/2009, -0/+25Teenagers who work for the US Congress are called "pages", and Foley has a bit of a taste for the boys.
- Hetman, on 04/29/2009, -2/+26Politicians open themselfs up for scrutiney as soon as they are elected. Outing someone for being a hypocrite is not wrong. If the NRA wants to out closeted democratic gun owners I am fine with that. If you are against abortion, but you have had five abortion, then you should be scrutinized. I mean in your opinion you committed 5 acts of murder. I am sorry but if a politician cannot even follow his own rules than he deserves to be outed on it. How about politicians who do not pay there taxes? I know many liberterians who were angry at them. They should have been happy because that is exactly what liberterians want.
- AzureRise, on 04/29/2009, -3/+26"let them make their own decisions when and if they are ready"
By campaigning against gay people they're making decisions for them Like whether they'll get mattied or not so ***** them it's fair game to out them. - 0tis, on 04/29/2009, -2/+24I understand the privacy issue. It is nobody's business what sexual orientation a person holds - until they start lecturing against the very thing they are. These people are being openly hypocritical and endangering gay rights across America as a result. Surely we deserve to know that?
Don't hate them, feel sorry for them. It's a mad world we live in where they have to be afraid of the consequences of being found out for who they are. Hopefully with this move, despite the pain it will cause individuals, they can begin campaigning for the issues they surely must want to campaign for. - amoirae, on 04/29/2009, -0/+20How could people tell that Mark Foley took a speed reading course?
He was turning pages faster than he could bend them over. - inactive, on 04/29/2009, -2/+22What the ***** do you expect? The conservative Christians in this country are holding us back. And I don't mean this as an indictment, but it's the honest-to-God truth. On gay rights, on sex ed., on evolution - the conservative Christians time and time again keep screaming because apparently progress is trampling on their religion. Morality, science, and just plain common sense tell us where we need to be going, but the conservative Christians just start screaming about how we're going against their superstitions and how God is going to be very angry with us for doing so.
- liquisoft, on 04/29/2009, -3/+23I love exposing hypocrisy. It's good, clean fun.
- scottknick, on 04/30/2009, -1/+19I see many people whose opinions I respect on both sides of this issue, but I have to come down on the "let 'em have it" side.
One point to consider is the charge that outing these people will ruin their careers. And of course it will. Why? Because the people they've worked for, the people they've formed friendships with, will start treating them as pariahs, as subhumans, because they're gay. They won't be able to get work with other conservative organizations for the same reason. In other words, they will be victims of the mentality they've worked so hard to perpetrate. And if this sends the message to the rest of the hypocrites that they can no longer count on making a comfy living demonizing by day what they enjoy at night, so much the better. - sarahlee, on 04/29/2009, -1/+18I understand the outrage, but on the personal privacy issue, I agree with you. Don't think this is something progressives should do - though who is to say that those doing the outing are Democrats.
- sugarazor, on 04/29/2009, -1/+18But they're trying to outlaw gay marriage, they oppose funding for AIDS research, they equate homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, they lobby against gay rights, they fought the overturning of sodomy laws, etc.
You can't say "gays can't get married!" while you yourself are having gay sex. That is the very definition of hypocrisy. - Diefree, on 04/29/2009, -1/+18Hmm you have a good point Verchiel77. But I also think by outing these people that are actively being hypocrites we can take the legs out from under the remainder of the anti-civil rights movements and further show the stupidity of their arguments. There's risk and reward either way you go here, ideally once more gay rights become more accepted these people will come forward on their own.
- JoeMondo, on 04/29/2009, -2/+19McCarthyism wasn't about exposing actual communists. It was about tarring a lot of people who were in no way communists.
- SaladCactusKing, on 04/29/2009, -1/+18Kirby Dick proved to be one of the best investigative documentary filmmakers around after he managed to out every secret ratings board member and utterly defeated the MPAA in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated"
Do yourself a favor and check it out. - sugarazor, on 04/29/2009, -3/+20Ah yes, it's gay people who are mean-spirited, not those who oppose them. Last I check, gay people have never called heterosexuality "an abomination," said they will burn in hell or carried signs that said "GOD HATES HETEROS!"
- acroyear2, on 04/29/2009, -0/+16@Verchiel77
I would argue that they took some kind of risk of retribution when they aggressively fought against gay rights. Also, I agree with you. I don't look forward to this being the image of a gay male in the media but it is one component of social aspect of homosexuality in America -- as far as I can tell at least. There are too many people who deny that homosexuality exists in their families and communities. I'm guessing that results in this obscene hypocrisy. Hopefully people will open their hearts to these deceitful politicians? - RedSaber, on 04/29/2009, -6/+22It's so incredible to see Americans still fighting over that issue.
The rest of the world went forward with this. Nothing bad happened. We are still alive and kicking. - boozinf, on 04/30/2009, -0/+15Can somebody please please please please please please please out Matt Drudge?
- anstice85, on 04/30/2009, -1/+17What's mind boggling is the amount of people who jump to defend said Republican politicians rights to gay sex and not give a ***** about the rights of millions of gays that these same politicians are actively working to limit. Who cares about gay marriage? We must defend our precious Mark Foleys from these gay people who are mad for some reason.
- JoeMondo, on 04/30/2009, -2/+18What a lot of you hetero posters don't seem to understand is that these asswipes have used the same gay community they demonize to keep their little secrets for them. How the hell do you think we know they're gay???
The only way you get outted is by letting people know you're gay. If you really want to keep it a secret, keep it to yourself. Don't go to gay bars, don't hang out with your boyfriend in certain circles, and don't ***** others of the same sex - IF you want to keep it a secret.
Outside of certain confidential situations, no one is obliged to keep your secrets for you. And no one you try to harm can reasonably be expected to. - JoeMondo, on 04/29/2009, -3/+18Being gay isn't a sacred cow.
If you're a politician you opened your life to this kind of scrutiny, and the electorate has the right to know about this kind of hypocrisy. - charm803, on 04/30/2009, -1/+16 "invasion of privacy"
You mean like telling gay people what to do with their personal life and not allow them to marry? - charm803, on 04/30/2009, -1/+16You mean calling out the bigots?
- sugarazor, on 04/29/2009, -3/+18I disagree, the invasion of privacy is coming from these hypocrites who are trying to say gay people can't do this or that, while they're participating in homosexual acts. It's no different than outing Eliot Spitzer for crusading against prostitution while he was seeing prostitutes. It doesn't matter that they're gay, it matters that they're hypocrites who are legislating bigotry.
- LawScholar, on 06/25/2009, -0/+14Maybe it's old, but I hadn't heard it. That was funny as hell.
Bert, Mark Foley was an actively anti-gay congressman who had an affair with a congressional page (essentially an errand boy) - Verchiel77, on 04/29/2009, -3/+17"It's important for people to understand how the gay community isn't some abstract notion that only exists in San Francisco."
------------------------------------
But do we want the replacement for that abstract notion to be individuals so ashamed or politically opportunistic that they've closeted themselves and voted against the interests of people just like themselves, individuals who will undoubtedly deny the outing and treat being called gay as an attack or smear? - novenator, on 04/29/2009, -12/+26Conservatism is by nature against homosexuality. Though one cannot chose how they are born, they *can* chose their political philosophy, and these folks should stop feeding the hand that bites them.
- JoeMondo, on 04/29/2009, -2/+15They opted to go into public life.
If their personal life and their public voting are not aligned people have the right to inform the voters. - JoeMondo, on 04/29/2009, -2/+15"Not granting special rights to people on the basis of group identity is a conservative ideal".
Too bad cons want to reserve the right of marriage for those of the hetero group identity. - anstice85, on 04/29/2009, -0/+13Right, and more than a few of these politicians who are against this because it's "a violation of privacy" were completely in favor of going after Bill Clinton during the Monica thing. It's unfair for them to demand privacy in their sex lives when they refused to support that same right for others.
- Verchiel77, on 04/28/2009, -32/+45These people suck, but outing them is worse. It's the sort of invasion of privacy that progressives would--and should--be screaming about.
Nothing will be accomplished other than making the outer look like a vengeful *****--an image that will ultimately be used as a club against other people fighting for pro-gay causes.
"See this is what the militant gays are about, ruining someone's life," etc., etc.
Not worth it. - catvllvs, on 04/30/2009, -0/+13A duplicitous person in one area will inevitably be duplicitous in other areas.
Out the *****. - JoeMondo, on 04/29/2009, -1/+14"they can get married to someone of the opposite sex"
And the argument against interracial marriage was "they can get married to persons of their own race".
"Marriage is not about tax breaks and health benefits, it's about a life long partnership."
Then why does it come with over 1,000 rights and responsibilities (including those mentioned here)? - scottknick, on 04/30/2009, -2/+14If this were just about outing gays who wish to remain closeted, I would oppose it. If this were just about outing gays who have some abstract legal arguments for not changing marriage laws, I would probably also oppose it.
But the fundamental[ist] reasoning behind banning gay marriage is the belief that gay relationships are disgusting, immoral and antisocial. Or to borrow a phrase from the departed Rick Santorum, gay marriage is the moral equivalent of man-on-dog sex. I'm sorry, but if you're gay and you lend your name or your muscle to spreading and sustaining that message, you're a sociopathic hypocrite and you deserve to be exposed -- not for your gayness, but for your hypocrisy. - JoeMondo, on 04/30/2009, -3/+15Exposing the truth about someone is not an ad hominem.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 275 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is