Pondering point made by freeper regarding politicians "in the closet"

[ecstatic]

The guy was clearly a bigot but he brought up an interesting point: When an elected official is hiding his/her sexual orientation, that opens the door to a lot of blackmail, etc. that would take the official's mind off of the job they were hired to do.

That being said, should politicians be required to disclose the truth about their sexual orientation before running for office?

[Waya]

1. Sexual Orientation is a private matter - disclose it, or not.......

......whatever. However, this is 2006 (hard to believe) and it shouldn't matter - gay or straight, 'in' or 'out' of the closet.

Even if Foley would have come out years ago and said he was gay - what has that to do with the current mess?

Being gay doesn't make you a Pedophile - they come in all types of sexual orientations....

:crazy:

[CoffeeCat]

16. Exactly...

Being a pedophile is about the compulsion to dominate, control, manipulate--and ultimately, destroy people. Children are an easy target--because they are so vulnerable and innocent. It's not about "attraction", it's about the desire to traumatize and power up on someone. Sex is just a weapon for the pedophile.

Pedophiles usually chose the gender and age of their victim--based on the age of their own childhood trauma/abuse. It's not based on "attraction" that's for sure.

Furthermore, most pedophiles are "situational abusers". They will abuse whomever is most accessible (teenagers, pre-pubescent children, males, females). Their end game is about gaining a "supply" of control and power from breaking down and dominating others. Abuser targets are simply "supply" certainly not objects of any "affection".

Pedophiles covet childrens' innocence and joy, because those qualities were stolen from the pedophile during their own childhood traumas. Pedophiles covet children. Pedophiles ARE obsessed with children, and they are attracted to them--but out of a compulsion to destroy them.

A pedophile's compulsion to inflict damage on another is rivaled only by the actions of a serial killer. No one would ever suggest that a male serial killer who killed males--is a homosexual serial killer.

We've got to stop thinking of pedophilia as an "attraction", and then the intertwining of homosexuality and pedophilia will be cleared.

[crikkett]

42. Can you qualify your opinion, please?

How did you reach it? Can you cite references? Your opinions have a ring of emotionalism to them. Are you the victim of a pedophile? Are you a professional psychologist, therapist, or in a related field of study?

I'm not a pedophile and I don't know any (i hope). Nor have I studied human nature beyond philosophy 101 and psychology 101, and my own experience.

It seems to me that sex is a curse for the pedophile, not a weapon.

[Solly Mack]

2. Ok. The problem with that ah.. "logic" is

Society's ignorance and prejudice and fear is what makes blackmail possible ...not the sexual orientation of the elected official

You couldn't blackmail an elected official for being gay if society didn't have such small minds.

Society drives people to the closet and keeps them there....when you can be murdered in this country for being part of the GBLT community, it's society's fault that people live in fear of being exposed...afraid to lose their jobs,their kids..their homes...

And it's that fear that allows for the blackmail.

[bryant69]

4. That's true

However I"m not sure how it contradicts the original point - if GLBT in the closet have a legitimate fear of being exposed, and they are vulnerable to blackmail, than perhaps they should choose to reveal themselves before taking office.

I don't know even as I type that I'm uncomfortable with it.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Solly Mack]

5. It does indeed contradict the original point.

The "point" puts the onus on the GLBT community instead of where it belongs...on society. Being GLBT isn't the problem... a society that not only allows hate but encourages it is the problem.

It's no different than LaHood's suggestion that ending the page program would end the abuse...No..ending the abuse would end the abuse. The page program isn't the problem...sexual predators in Congress is the real problem...covering up for sexual predators in Congress is the real problem

And being gay does not equal sexual predator...and anything that promotes that thinking is just another sign of society's ignorance and prejudice.

Address the real problem... society's ignorance. society's prejudice.

It's up to society to change and not up the GLBT to lay bare their private lives.

And any person who thinks a sexual predator in Congress is going to tell people "Yes, I'm a sexual predator" is either an idiot...or someone who does equate being gay with being a pedophile.

Which still makes them an idiot

If it wasn't for hate-filled morons equating sexual predator with being gay, this question wouldn't even be asked. Had Foley IM'ed a teenage girl, the talk would be about sexual predators only...and sexual orientation wouldn't even come up.

[bryant69]

6. OK but we aren't there right now

Take it as read that I believe society should change around this issue (It has changed considerably since the 70s but needs to change further). From where we are on the curve right now, are the GLBT vulnerable to blackmail? And if they are what should be done to counter this right now?

Obviously though you are right in that we need to move society further along the curve so this won't be a problem.

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

7. Right NOW - IS the time to address society's stupidity

Right now is ALWAYS the time to address hate, racism, bigotry, sexism and homophobia. Right now is always the time to address human rights.

Thinking it isn't the time to address these issues is the reason society continues to embrace ignorance and prejudice. Thinking it isn't the right time is why America tortures people.

The idea that it takes time to change people without the effort put forward to change people is the favorite excuse of those afraid of change...mainly because they benefit from the status quo. They benefit from telling people to wait...to give it time.

RIGHT NOW is the time to stand up and speak out against bigotry.


People who ask the victims of bigotry to conform to the demands of bigotry - instead of speaking out against bigotry RIGHT NOW - do nothing more than enable the bigotry.

I trust I made myself crystal clear.

[bryant69]

8. Yes, very crystal.

I particularly like how you impugned my motives - very solid.

I will point out that it is possible to do two things at once - speak out against bigotry and also try to negotiate the best way to deal with such bigotry.

But let it be - moral superiority should always win out over practical concerns.

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

9. Oh? Do you ask the victims to give in to their victimizers?

If you do, then yes, I'm saying you enable bigotry. If you're not...then I'm not.

You deal with bigotry by confronting it, calling it what it is - and NEVER giving in to it's demands.

It's really quite simple.

And there's nothing practical about what you suggested since it feeds bigotry...how can any reasonable person think feeding bigotry stops bigotry? It doesn't...it just allows bigotry to continue. It enables the bigotry. There's absolutely nothing logical about thinking bigotry can be reduced or changed by giving in to it.

[bryant69]

10. I will note this flaw in your argument

Bigots presumably want GLBT to not run for congress, to be cowed by these threats so that they don't dare run for public office -that is their goal. And I certainly didn't suggest anything of that.

I suggested that they might choose to reveal their sexual identity as they take office (or while they are campaigning, preferably), because in that way they will be less vulnerable to blackmail (assuming the blackmail threat is real, and there seems to be a consensus that it does exist). Even as I made that suggestion I wasn't entirely comfortable with it. And for that I'm catching a certain amount of hell.

Let's approach this another way - say a friend of yours who is part of the GLBT community comes to you and says "Hey I'm thinking about running for Congress. Politically do you think it would be better if I revealed myself at the outset, or should I stay in the closet through the campaign?" How would you answer that question - and don't take the weasal route of "Whatever you want to do, my friend." Of course you would leave the decision up to him or her, but if he or she were your friend you'd wan to give him or her a real overview of the problems he or she might face.

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

11. LOL "flaw", huh?

LOLOLOL It's not the weasel way out as you so put it to tell people to follow their conscience. Have to have a conscience to understand that I guess.

See how that works? :)

To be clear...once again.

I don't give in to the demands of bigots. Nor would I encourage anyone else to do so.

Those who do...feed the bigots.

If the candidate is out, then when he runs it's already a known factor(duh)...if the candidate is not out, then he has reason not to be out(another duh). I would respect his reasons...since I know the reality is...America is a bigoted country that doesn't mind murdering gays.

You insist on making sexual orientation the issue...the problem....without dealing with the fact that America's ignorance and prejudice is the real problem. You keep insisting on putting the onus on those discriminated against instead of those who do the discriminating. You keep making it the victims responsibility instead of the victimizers

And as long as you do.....

[bryant69]

12. Go on- finish the thought

I mean you already described me as without conscience - may as well finish this one too.

[Solly Mack]

15. LOL Don't play put upon when you're throwing the weasel word around

It's not very convincing. lolol

The thought finished is... then we don't have much to talk about

[bryant69]

17. I didn't call you a weasel

I was using weasal as a verb - perhaps it has a different connotation for you, if so I apologize.

To weasel out of something is to refuse to answer the question, which is more or less what you did, although you presented your answers for why you refused to answer it.

Let's sum up.

Point 1. American politics and society isn't what it should be. GLBT people shouldn't have to fear when they run for public office. On this point we both agree (although you might feel that my agreement here is largely feigned).

Point 2. American politics and society will try to exact a price from any GLBT people who run for office whether in the close or out of the closet. Those GLBT politicians who are in the closet could be subject to black mail threats. I assume we both agree on ths point - certainly nothing you've said contradicts this.

Your point 3. Questioning how to best navigate this rocky terrain that shouldn't exist distracts from the real issue, which is that this condition should be eradicated. Acknowledgeing the terrain legitamizes it, reifies it. Rather we should act is if Americans politics and society openly accepts and supports GLBT politicians, because to do otherwise is to give into the concerns of bigots and bigot enablers. Please correct me if I've misstated your position (I'm sure you will anyway).

My point 3. We don't do GLBT politicians any favors by pretending that the problems inherent in American politics and society don't exist. Rather we should work to determine the best way for them to negotiate the terrain as it exists now, while also working to change the terrain to what it should be (i.e. an America in which GLBT can run for office without fear).

Is that a fair summation? And if so you are right, it wouldn't seem that we can accomadate both of our positions.

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

18. LMAO

You aren't "acknowledgeing" anything - you are suggesting we pacify the bigots... and then attempting to label your suggestion as you merely stating the problem. When you aren't even addressing the problem.



Then you flat out pull a falsehood(nice word for it) out of your ass with this garbage

" Rather we should act is if Americans politics and society openly accepts and supports GLBT politicians"


When that was never said.

Addressing bigotry is not acting as if the bigots in politics and society accept and supports the GLBT community...you would be making another ah...false..statement to say it was ever said... or suggested...or implied...or inferred.

And I love the Bush-league pre-emption "(I'm sure you will anyway)"

You deliberately make a false statement and then tag a Bush-league pre-emption onto it and you think that means something...LMAO

You think you scored a point. ROFLMAO

Shouldn't you stick to your shtick of throwing out an idea that is intended to spark controversy, all for the sake of discussion, of course (snort) and explaining how you are just putting it out there and that you feel bad about it but it just doesn't hurt to explore it as an option

Oh wait...you are!!!

ROFLMAO

[bryant69]

19. What have I done to convince you that I'm such a total bastard

Or do you treat anybody who questions you this way?

or is this coming from something else - you already have an opinion that I am something I'm not allowed to say, and you aren't either, so you are assuming that's fueling my apparent total bastard quality. If you do think I am that thing I'm not allowed to say, you should alert the mods.

Of course if I'm trying to understand and summarize your argument I'm not going to use words you specifically used, but I apoligize for even trying to undertand you - clearly understanding isn't what you want but capitulation.

So I give in - you are ocmpletely right and I am completely wrong -and a bigot too. I'll give you that as well, since you seem to want it. I'm a gay-hating bigot, that much is clear, by my failure to agree with you completely. and of course I'm also a dishonest, mean-spirited, nasty asshole, with no conscience. Anything else you want me to admit, just post and I'll admit it right off.

Bryant

[Solly Mack]

21. LMAO. Get over yourself. And stop playing the poor put upon poster

who is just so misunderstood....You are anything but

[bryant69]

23. Nice

There are two possibilities here.

Either I have been honest in my arguments and we really arent' that far apart, in which case your argument style is senseless -rather than finding common ground and bringing me around to your view, you attack me for not already sharing your view - that's a stupid way to argue. Rather you've made me feel like shit, and convinced me that your opinion is pretty much pie in the sky bullshit. You enjoy being on your high horse and looking down peoples nose more than you enjoy actually grappling with real problems. You are selling out GLBT politicans to get a self esteem fix. Presumably that's not the reaction you wanted me to have, unless, of course you believed possibility number 2.

Possibility number 2 - i'm inherently dishonest - I am not interested in debating the issue but just sowing discontent and confusion. If this is true, than what's the point to debating me? Better to ridicule me, make me look like a bastard, so that other DUers can see the rightness of your moral position. And if this is the one - well we both know what we aren't saying, I suppose.

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

24. I Got Your Back On This One, Bryant

I think Solly is off the beam here. The argument doesn't pass the logic test, and i think your question was a fair one, that doesn't require bigotry to answer.
The Professor

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solly Mack]

27. Do yourself a favor and stop already

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. How Is Declaring One's Self To Be Openly Gay. . .

. . .giving in to the bigots?

I think you've got you gut in a knot without even reviewing what you're saying.

I would think, given your premise, that you would be all for gay men coming out of the closet in all circumstances, because that would force society to see the big picture. One can't change society without the truth. Can one? How would maintaining a disguise help alter the bigotry?
The Professor

[Solly Mack]

25. As I never - not once - said it did, I can't answer that

Did you read the original post? And then did you read my original reply?

I said the GBLT community shouldn't have to out themselves to accommodate bigots. See the question was about blackmail...and the GLBT community should not have to out themselves because society's ignorance about homosexuality is the root cause of being able to blackmail someone for being gay. See? It's real simple...if society wasn't such morons about homosexuality, then gays wouldn't have to hide it from society, and then there wouldn't be people who could blackmail you because you are gay. It wouldn't matter if you were gay if society was not so stupid because it wouldn't be an issue. So instead of putting the onus on the GLBT community to out themselves to prevent blackmail, why not address society's bigotry...which is the real problem.

But you didn't read it all did you?



There is a difference in what I actually said and in how what I said is being framed.


So I can only answer for what I actually said...and then when it's not taken out of context.

I'm sure you understand

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Nice Try

Look up the words connote and imply. (Inference may be good too.)

How does "outing" one's self, and thereby telling the truth, accomodate the bigots?

This time, no parsing. This very post of yours, to which i'm replying, says it EXPLICITLY. To the exact word.

How does telling the truth, accomdoate the bigots? How can society be changed, as you wish it to change, without the truth?

And, try to lose the chip on your shoulder. I asked an honest question. Don't play lawyer. Just answer the honest question.
The Professor

[Solly Mack]

LMAO when you decide to address what I actually said...let me know

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Geez, You're Tedious

I QUOTED you. QUOTED! And you still can't answer the question. Well, don't bother letting me know when you actually have a solid answer. I've lost interest in your opinion.

The Professor

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TahitiNut]

30. "Don't Ask; Don't Tell" is an ethically bankrupt policy, imho.

No matter where it's "implemented."

[Solly Mack]

31. It is

the telling is up to the person and only the person...and they shouldn't be forced to tell based on soceity's fear and ignorance

[TahitiNut]

35. Exception (stated below): The Barney Frank Rule

:shrug:

[Solly Mack]

36. I think the hypocrites should be exposed for their hypocrisy

Because that hypocrisy is part of the problem...so yes, those in politics making it hard for the GLBT community should be exposed for their hypocrisy
..simply because those in politics make the laws that can harm the GLBT community

but my point, that is being twisted around by others , is that a candidate shouldn't have to declare their sexual orientation to the public just to prevent blackmail. Being gay isn't wrong or the problem....how society views homosexuality is...so that's the problem that should be addressed...society's prejudice and ignorance

[ProfessorGAC]

34. I Think That's My Point

You are agreeing with me, are you not? I don't see how lying about it changes society's attitudes.
The Professor

[VelmaD]

13. Just wanted you to know...

there's at least one other person on DU who agrees with your sentiments 100 percent. You said it better than I ever could. Brava! :yourock:

[Solly Mack]

14. Thank you, VelmaD

I think you're great too!!!! :)

[Lilith Velkor]

3. So if a pol is a pedophile, they should be required to say so?

Um, yeah, sure, that'll work. :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

29. Since when is 'gay' = 'pedophile'???

Appalling! Fucking appalling!! :grr:

[Lilith Velkor]

40. It isn't.

The OP did not say anything about homosexuality, just orientation. If a politician's orientation is toward children of either sex, that politician should be outed, but in my opinion, expecting a pedophile to out himself is unrealistic.

[TahitiNut]

20. Other: I'll support the Barney Frank Rule.

Their sexual orientation is fair game if they politicize sexual orientation. Period.

"Outing": The Frank Rule

During an anti-gay GOP campaign, Frank threatened to out a number of gay-baiting Republican fellow congressmen. He stated that it is unacceptable to out a closeted gay person, unless that person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/44/news-ireland.php). Many members of the LGBT community adhere to this rule in their own relationships with prominent individuals.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barney_Frank#.22Outing.22:_The_Frank_Rule

[Matariki]

41. THIS SHOULD BE A NON-ISSUE