Attacking our opponents by implying that they are closeted Gays or Pedophiles is not clever...

[SidneyCarton]

In fact it is both crass and bigoted.

By referring to a political opponent as a "closeted, self-hating Homosexual" one does two things: First, one rehashes the old prejudice that being Homosexual (particularly a closeted Homosexual) is tantamount to being deranged and dangerous. Clearly this is not the case and one would think that any poster on DU, with its large and vocal GLBT community would know better than to do that by now.

Second, it participates in the disgusting and vile art of character assassination through unfounded accusations. Now I realize that some may justify this by stating that they are only using the weapons of the opposition (particularly Beck, Limbaugh etc...) against them. Such arguments and self-justifying arguments are as vile as the accusations themselves. Either a behavior is reprehensible and ought not to be participated in at all, or it is perfectly acceptable. Where there are no laws, those lines are drawn by our own actions. If we tolerate character assassination by unfounded accusation, we are essentially saying that we have no problem with it when Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity or O'Reilly do it.

As to the charges of Pedophilia, what I just said above can be even more strongly reiterated. The charge of child molestation is understandably a serious one. It ought not be thrown around lightly, as it is a most vile crime, and there is nothing remotely funny about it. (If you feel it is, please feel free to chime in here, there are a number of survivors of this despicable crime here at DU, who would be more than willing to correct you.)

If it can be proved that our opponents are involved in illicit activities, by all means, let it be said, for the truth is not slander. But let it be understood in the appropriate context. If Congressman X is a closeted Gay man, it is only relevant if he has taken a position opposing Gay rights, and this reveals him to be a hypocrite, otherwise, the business of his bedroom ought to remain there.

[Eric J in MN]

1. "implying" is the word for the subject line (NT)

NT

[SidneyCarton]

3. Thank you, I will fix it.

[JuniperLea]

2. I'm not looking for a fight here...

I've been trying to figure out how one might raise the issue of the hypocrisy without evoking such things. I think your last sentence is correct, but it doesn't just go for Congressmen/women, and how exactly do you say it, properly?

[SidneyCarton]

4. Now that is a good question.

Frankly, I'm not certain, I haven't tried it myself. I would imagine much of this is involved in tone, an absence of snark, of faux outrage, etc... I'm open to suggestions actually.

[Richardo]

5. Great post

K&R

[insanity]

6. I'd go a step further

and say no matter what, the business of the bedroom should stay there. I don't think the kind of sex I have (or sometimes don't have) has any bearing on my ability to understand public policy. Anyways, the hypocrites and offenders usually get caught in a men's room taking a wide-stance. All of them seem to eventually pay their dues. I focus on winning these debates with the moral and pragmatic high-ground instead of attacking someone with unfounded accusations. The reason the right is so eager to attack is because they can't win the debate on an intellectual level so they turn up the dumb-o-meter and let shit fly. We're better than that.

[SidneyCarton]

7. I would basically agree with you.

The only "bedroom matters" I do not necessarily feel need to be left alone are those which are illegal (rape, incest, child molestation) yet as I stated in the OP, these matters are of such seriousness, they ought only be brought up when there is compelling proof of criminal wrong doing. At that point, one hopes that the Law has stepped in.

[IndianaGreen]

20. The 'we are better than that' has gotten us nowhere!

Wake up and smell the coffee. There is a war out there and we better fight them no holds barred, or prepare to suffer more Prop-8s.

[insanity]

21. We are already winning it

I think sometimes we need a spine to stand up and say to the Republicans, "Fuck off, assholes", but I'm not about to lower myself to their level. In the long-run we are winning the battle anyways (look at the demographics in this country).

[Oregone]

8. When you always take the highroad, some times those down in the gutter can't hear you

[SidneyCarton]

11. Unfortunately, to do otherwise is to accept the invitation to swim in excrement.

I think Congressman Grayson may have struck the right balance. His words are harsh and undiplomatic, but not mudslinging. He puts the policy positions of his opponents into a stark contrast that manages to inflame those in the gutter, without taking a swim in the "Hershey river" with them.

[insanity]

22. Also, Anthony Weiner

Weiner is fighting back- tooth for tooth- on policy matters. His attacks are viscous, but entirely founded. He doesn't have to fling bullshit and hidden accusations about sexual orientation or preference, just cold hard facts. And its driving the reich wing crazy!

[jonnyblitz]

9. the transphobic comments such as "Mann Coulter" are always

bad as well. Keith Olbermann even pulls that shit.

good post, btw.

[ThomCat]

10. It pisses me off when people say that everyone they hate is Gay.

That just tells us that they hate Gay people. :grr:

When they constantly mock women with transsexual jokes they are announcing that they think transsexuals are people worthy of mockery. :grr:

If your someone's first reaction when insulting an opponent is to pull out sexuality and gender based "jokes" then all we're going to get is more bigotry.

We have been complaining about this to straight DUers for years. How much longer will it take before people understand?

Anyone who is bigoted enough throw these kinds of "jokes" around really needs face their bigotry and get over it if they ever expect to be considered an ally of ours.

[SidneyCarton]

12. As a straight poster, I take this position after observing more of this than even I can stand.

This crap may have been mildly impressive back in 8th grade (and even then, it really wasn't all that cool) but if one still finds arguments like those mentioned in the OP impressive and viable, they may want to grow up a bit.

[QC]

13. K&R

[noiretextatique]

14. the closted gays who actively work against the interests of GLBT

people are the only ones that concern me. unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of them.

[jonnyblitz]

16. sometimes i think there are more gays in the GOP, closeted or

not, than there are in the DEM party. i meet so many gay folks, particulary white guys, who seem right wing in most of their beliefs except for their personal rights and that is why i often find my activism focusing on antiwar events (i am also a vet) more than gay stuff because my fellow gays are just too fucking wingnutty for me. and the gays that put their obama worship ahead of the rights of their own community especially get on my nerves. I have encountered many gay white racists as well which is troubling.

[noiretextatique]

18. very troubling...i've encountered quite a some gay racists too

although according to some people here, the gay community is one big, happy, non-racist family. wingnutty :rofl: obama worship :rofl: i hear you :7
on the other hand, i really can't bear the hand-wringing over outing people who actively work against GLBT rights. :shrug: they made the choices they did, and now they have to live with them.

[IndianaGreen]

15. If a public personality attacks LGBTs, but has a secret gay sex life

you bet that person should be outed!

Many of the timid hand wringers in the LGBT community were upset and offended by the tactics of Larry Kramer and his ACT UP organization. Guess what? Larry Kramer was totally right! Enough of the hand wringing and being nice. If a public figure harming the gay community is found to lead a double life, that person should be publicly outed and condemn.

[SidneyCarton]

17. Is being "gay" defined wholly by one's sex life?

Would most GLBT's argue that their entire identity is based solely on their choice of sexual partner?

Outing someone in this fashion seems to be a decision on the part of someone other than the person in question as to that person's sexual identity. There is nothing progressive in that.

[IndianaGreen]

19. 'Choice' of sexual partner? Who we are attracted to has nothing to do with choice

It is the way we were made by nature (or GAWD if you believe in such mythology).

If your entire identity is defined by who you are attracted to, then I'll say you haven't got much in terms of who you are.

If on the other hand, you preach morality on TV and you are caught with a prostitute (as Jimmy Swaggart was), then you are a hypocrite and you should be exposed for the fraud you are.

If you are a public official, or an influencial radio personality, and you constantly attack and harm the LGBT community and you lead a double life, then you are a hypocrite and you should be exposed for the fraud you are.

[Malikshah]

23. Oh steward of right and wrong... is calling out hypocrisy allowed? Our

lesser ears yearn for your condescending scolding tone.

[stevenleser]

24. I think it should be called out rather harshly.

But, that's just my 2 cents.