Sunday, June 17, 2007

I still feel sorry for Tyler

I have gotten a lot of comments about my Tyler Whitney post, and I thought I should address some things publicly, rather than let them get lost in the comments. Also, it's clear that I am in the minority, so I want to better explain myself (not defensively, but just so everyone knows exactly where I am coming from).

First, I am not sure Tancredo is the most hostile to gays candidate (hostile to immigrants certainly, but we aren't talking about a story exposing Tancredo of employing an undocumented gardener). He opposes gay marriage using the same tired procreation argument, and doesn't vote for any pro-gay federal legislation (there could be a legitimate federalism reason for this, though I doubt it). Now, do I think Tancredo would make even a passable president? No. I'd vote for Obama over him (A Hills v. Tom race might send me to a third party again). Tancredo is certainly not a gay-friendly politician, but I'm just not sure a gay kid working for him is exactly like a back kid working for George Wallace.

Secondly, It's true that I may have glossed over Tyler's own exercise of extremely poor judgment. Perhaps some of the things he did were awful. Apart from various connections a la six degrees from Kevin Bacon, the only thing I can find that Tyler actually SAID or DID was hold a sign that was is in extremely poor taste. (You'll notice that some of the more outrageous things in the article are attributed to associates, but the author is obviously making an attempt to connect them to Tyler). For that, he deserves to be outed? If you think so, I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Third, do I want to give him a free pass? No, had the story been that in addition to working for Tancredo, Tyler had been convicted of a hate-based assault against gays, my opinion would be different. Matt is quite right to point out the personal responsibility aspects of this situation, and I have to agree with Matt up to a point. I'm just concerned that this punishment is not commensurate. Basically, from what I can tell, Tyler's sins are: holding incorrect beliefs, expressing them in poor taste, and having acquaintances who are even more evil. If that's all he did, sure he should be called out, but there's no reason he should be called out in such a way that I should ever have heard about it. (Please ignore the fact that even by trying to take his side, I am continuing to call attention to Tyler's situation, making his outing even more widespread). It seems like instead of washing his mouth out with soap, we are throwing acid in his eyes.

Fourth, you may think I am overreacting. "All that happened to him is that he was outed, and now he can live a more honest and fulfilling life. Plus now he doesn't have to go through the agony of doing it himself; the band-aid is already off," you may say. But it's more than that. At 18 he's finished in public policy. Pro-Gay groups (including also the libertarian leaning groups I align myself with) wont have him for what he did before he was outed. And conservatives won't have him because he's gay. Even if, as I expect (hope?), conservatives give up this anti-gay nonsense, Tyler will not be welcome as a reminder of the movement's dubious past. Furthermore, should Tyler see the light, any attempt to look rehabilitated ("I was a very misguided youth, and I deeply regret some of the things I have done") will be met with a jaundiced eye from both sides. This kid will be lucky if anyone from a city councilman up will talk to him again. That HAS to matter to him. People with only a passing, cocktail party interest in policy and politics do not go to work for congressmen running for president.

Finally, true confessions: the Tyler Whitney situation is scary to me because I see how EASILY I could have been him. I have said here before that back deep in the closet I associated with groups and supported politicians who could legitimately be criticized for being being anti-gay. I rationalized at the time "I support 75% of what they say, and I don't really care that much about social issues, anyway." (My current, continued affiliation with the GOP, certainly the more anti-gay party, is different. I no longer turn a blind eye to their anti-gay policies, and hope to help change the party from within). I am ashamed now of those affiliations and have severed them completely, but they still exist in my past. It grieves me to think that I contributed, even indirectly, to some of the pain and prejudice that I and many others are experiencing now.

Thankfully even at 18 I had the good sense to know that holding a sign in such poor taste would not only be ineffective for my cause, but could also come back to bite me. However, a few years ago I worked for a policy organization and wrote two op-eds. One was about education policy and the other was a criticism of a prominent leader in the gay community. Can you guess which one still shows up when I google my name? Though I was never mean spirited and tried to focus my criticism on legitimate problems, someone could construe the op-ed as anti-gay. (I remember at the time I wrote it, I had a paragraph along the lines of "even if he is right that XYZ," and was told to take it out, because it "ruined my argument and gave [the leader] too much ground.") I wouldn't say I am haunted by the op-ed the way I am some of my former affiliations, but I would prefer that it could recede back into history just so I don't have to deal with it if it ever does come up.


Update:
North Dallas Thirty found a few more folks who are, well, sympathetic to Tyler.

21 comments:

Matt said...

Really, I'm totally willing to let it go. But I just can't help it one more time.

I'm not attacking you or your views on outing. I just think this is an extremely important issue. As much as you hate outing (for valid personal reasons of which I'm sympathetic, as well as your notions of justice) I hate hypocritical conservative gay-bashers.

(This is why I hardly ever respond to the debates I stir up on my blog. You get yourself into a trap and it's never-ending.) :-)

"Tyler's sins are: holding incorrect beliefs, expressing them in poor taste, and having acquaintances who are even more evil. If that's all he did, sure he should be called out, but there's no reason he should be called out in such a way that I should ever have heard about it."

If it was just about expression of beliefs or his poor choice in associates, I would be more sympathetic. But it wasn't just the sign, or Tancredo, or his self-hating beliefs. The most galling sentence in the article is the one you left out:

Tyler "leads an anti-gay group on his college campus."

That's not just expression of beliefs. That's not just hanging around with assholes. That is ACTIVELY trying to HURT other gays. He was presumably advocating an anti-gay stance. And since every club leader wants his ranks to grow, he was also presumably recruiting others to his hatred. He was making it HARDER for gay kids in Michigan to just live their lives quietly, free from harassment.

To use your metaphor, that's not just a black kid working for George Wallace. That's a black kid starting his own branch of the KKK.

In a sense, this is poetic justice. He got only that which he dished out.

While it's debatable whether he deserves to be outed to the whole country (he did, after all, ally himself with a presidential campaign. At least under defamation laws, I do believe that would make his business our business to some degree) I can't say it's categorically wrong to have outed him nationally. It sure as hell got our attention. And if there are people out there like him, this may serve as a wake-up call. It sucks for Tyler that he had to be the sacrificial lamb, but his mistakes may cause others to wise up. Come out of the closet. But if you don't, keep your fat mouth shut. NOBODY likes a hypocrite.

In fact, if there are closeted gays out there working for conservatives, they're probably reading your blog. So, while you are in some ways increasing Tyler's pain, publicizing it is helping others (people like you used to be) learn not to make the same mistake.

I think that's a public service to both the gay community and the conservative community. Your pink and your elephant would be proud.

Michael in Norfolk said...

Pink,

I DO understand your reasoning. However, I actually do not think Tyler's political career necessarily needs to be over. I can think of a number of former high profile far right types who had their epiphany and changed sides. Have you read "Blinded by the Right?" It even describes the transformation process.

Also, in one of today's posts I described how one of the original founders of Exodus International now works to oppose ex-gay programs. Nothing need be forever either in life or politics (OK, Chimperator Bush, Cheney and some of their minions will never be trusted, or in my opinion, moral individuals, but they are an exception).

On a purely entertainment note, if you haven't seen the movie "The Trip" you should check it out. You might identify with the Alan caracter. :)

Jeremy said...

"Apart from various connections a la six degrees from Kevin Bacon, the only thing I can find that Tyler actually SAID or DID was hold a sign that was is in extremely poor taste."

That is exactly what those of us who support Tyler have been saying. There are several young gay men working for Marilyn Musgrave and helping her get her message out. It is only petty vengeance for the gay leftists to be condemning them without any evidence of actual homophobic acts. We are all free to choose which politicians we support and people are way off base to attack that.

"Pro-Gay groups wont have him for what he did before he was outed."

Who is David Brock?

"And conservatives won't have him because he's gay."

Tom Tancredo's spokeswoman has already appeared on radio to support Tyler. The campaign finds him invaluable and will continue to welcome his efforts to elect Tom.

"This kid will be lucky if anyone from a city councilman up will talk to him again."

Honestly, where are you getting this from? Have you ever lived in DC? There are literally dozens of high profile gay Republican stars. Ken Mehlman, David Dreier, and Matthew Drudge, and Charles Francis are just the few that most people know about.

"My current, continued affiliation with the GOP, certainly the more anti-gay party"

What on Earth is your proof of this?

"I am ashamed now of those affiliations and have severed them completely"

I find it baffling that someone would find an issue like what they do under the covers in bed to be more important than fighting the death tax, amnesty, or porkbarrel spending. Why do you identify yourself by your sexual preference?

Oran Taran said...

I feel sorry for him. He must have certainly been some troubled kid. However, he SHOULD have been outed. He was a hypocrite and any hypocrite should be outed too. Whether it be a gay homophobe, an atheist bishop, an anti-pedophile pedophile, etc.

Others have said why he's a hypocrite. He actively chose to do something anti-gay, and support anti-gay views. He deserves what he got.

Pink Elephant said...

Matt, thanks for your comment, and rest assured that I did not overlook the compliments you paid me in it. Also, perhaps in the future I should heed your advice about not commenting on my comments :)

Anyway your point about hypocrisy is well taken. It is perhaps hardest to defend the hypocrite (but, I'll try anyway). Similarly, as a gay person, I am sensitive to the fact that by engaging in protests on gay issues (I tried to avoid them myself, the op-ed I mentioned notwithstanding), he made himself particularly vulnerable.

However (couldn't you just feel that word coming up?), as for heading an anti-gay organization, the author of the article is referring to YAF. Tyler is the head of a chapter of YAF at MSU. The chapter is listed as a hate organization by the Southern Poverty Center, not because of its activities towards the gay community, but because of "constant immigrant bashing," an accusation that is controversial. Furthermore, YAF itself, though conservative is not an anti-gay organization in the sense that that is its purpose, but rather is like any other broadly conservative organization that doesn't explicitly carve out an exception to the conservative "majority" with regard to gay rights. To say that YAF is anti-gay means also that the Young Republicans and the Federalist Society are. You may believe that these groups are anti-gay (you wouldn't be alone), but a leader of the Young Republicans is not exactly a minister at Westboro Baptist Church. (Gosh, I am just trowing around all sorts of metaphors today).

Ah Jeremy, you have walked right into my trap!

First of all, David Brock is precisely the kind of person I NEVER WANT TO BE. David Brock is a former conservative who when he decided to come out ran right to the ample bosom the left. He is a perfect example of someone whose bedroom activities have inexplicably changed his opinions on "the death tax, amnesty, or porkbarrel spending." David Brock is tolerated by the left because he "left the cult" and now works to destroy it. Perhaps if Tyler Whitney does that, he will be fine among the gay left as well.

Now i happen to think that the Tancredo campaign is treating this appropriately. That notwithstanding, it is difficult for someone who is now so publicly gay (thanks to this little outing) to get another position among the conservative policy orgs. Perhaps its not because he is gay, maybe he would just a be a PR liability. If I am wrong, then thank goodness, but right now I am not as optimistic about his prospects at Heritage.

As for the dozens of high profile gay Republicans in DC, let's look at your list. Mehlman, to my knowledge, still denies being gay or avoids the question altogether. Why should he if it wouldn't be a political liability for the former head of the RNC to be gay? Drier is high profile? Outside of DC or his district who has heard of him? You would think that among a party that is identified as being anti-gay, he would be a frequent example of why gay republican is not an oxymoron. As for Matt Drudge, I had not heard that he is gay. If he is, he's clearly not out to the degree poor Tyler is. Though high profile inside the beltway, like Drier, I doubt my parents or my non-political friends have ever heard of him. Of these folks, how many have had the kind of outing that Tyler did? Perhaps the closest is Drier, whose pre-outing record betrays voting for DOMA and against adding sexual orientation to the list of federal hate crime protected classes. Still no one seemed as outraged about that record as they do by Tyler's sign and his heading up a chapter of YAF (though really, if you think about it, the voting record of an actual congressman would be more pertinent to gay rights than this kid's college political activism).

My proof of the fact that the GOP is more anti-gay than the democrats lies in the fact that in 2004, when the FMA was put on the official GOP platform, the party denied Log Cabin requests to also include a statement that not all groups agree entirely with all the details. Similarly when LCR declined to endorse Bush in 2004 (again b/c of the FMA) they weren't even allowed a booth at the convention. Compare the numbers of Republican who can get elected for "fighting the homosexual agenda" to the number of Democrats who could get elected saying the same thing. Now I don't mean to suggest that Dems are a better party for gays (indeed my gut tells me that they take us for granted), but how often does a democrat have to answer the question "how can you be gay and support that party?"

As for my last statement. Again for the sake of my anonymity, I am not willing to list any specific organizations, but let's just say that they wouldn't look good on a resume submitted to the HRC (not that I would do such a thing). They were groups that while being on the right side on taxes, spending, national security, and others, were actively on the wrong side of equality for gays.

One of the overarching purposes of my blog is to DEMONSTRATE that my sexual orientation doesn't have to dictate my positions on issues such as taxes, national security, government spending, gun control, the regulation of business or anything else that doesn't ahve to do with being gay. However, since this is also a coming-out blog, my sexuality is also a central theme. I identify myself by it to underscore the fact that as a gay man I do not need to fall in lockstep with the gay left. For example, I am a gay man who opposes hate crime laws, even when they protect me. If I didn't mention that I am gay, my opposition to hate crime laws would not be worth a second look by those who support them.

Lewd & Lascivious said...

I stand behind Pink 100% and applaud his attempt to show compassion to a young man, an individual human being dealing with his own struggles, who got caught up in a political pissing match. Who are any of us to judge him? Pink is right.

As for the rest of you... Newsflash, people: if you dare to espouse any moral principle whatsoever, you too are a hypocrite. Unless you have the chutzpah to suggest that you follow all your beliefs perfectly--in which case, not only are you a hypocrite, but a bald-faced liar.

The charge of hypocrisy is the lamest one in the ad hominem arsenal because it points out the most commonplace failure of all people everywhere. Try to do better next time, if you're going to try to rip a stranger to shreds.

Who can possibly win with you guys? Christians who don't believe the religious sacrament of marriage should be changed are "evil". Politicians who represent their constituents' view that gay marriage is undesirable are "evil". This is, in a word, twisted. You're saying that all these millions of people are not mistaken, not just stubborn, not merely afraid of change, but "evil" like the KKK or Hitler. And confused teenagers trying to come to terms with their sexuality and screwing up along the way are "hypocrites" who deserve to be publicly humiliated and outed by their own--the very people who should feel compassion for them. And why? Because you think it's some sort of public duty. What a load of crap. No wonder Tyler kept his coming-out struggle private (or attempted to, before busybodies outed him).

I agree with Pink completely that outing another person is a wretched, thoughtless, mean-spirited thing to do. The rationalizations people offer for doing so only point up their vindictive, self-serving spirits.
How do I know this? Because hey, I'll admit it: I've been vindictive and self-serving and have "outed" a person's dirty secrets before. Whether or not they deserved it (which in that case, they did), whether or not I was telling the truth (which I was), it was a shitty and low thing to do on my part. I was ashamed and promised myself to never do it again (and I haven't). Those of you supporting forced outings and the humiliation of a kid ought to be ashamed of yourselves now.

Oh, and Matt: regarding defamation laws, being a webmaster for a presidential campaign hardly makes one a public figure under the law. If it does--if sleazy lawyers were to succeed in efforts to make it so--then "the law is an ass" and every employee of any public figure anywhere is vulnerable to vicious personal attacks by people who can't make their argument legitimately.

There's no honor in any of this. But hell, what do I know? I'm just an evil Christian, right? Gotta go practice my goose-stepping now so I can put all the gays in concentration camps.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps outing maybe one of the only ways forward, and to force Republicans to accept that competent people within their ranks.

Discussing this topic the other day, quite irationaly a few of us acknowledged dislking of hearing of the increasing out number of Tories; it seems like a betrayal in some ways. however, we also ackonwleged it is probably a positive step. There are 198 Tory MP's, three of which are openly gay. The growing lists of Prospective Conservative Parliamentary Candidates includes a number of gay men and lesbians. The positive angle on this is that sexuality is ceasing to be an issue. The most popular political blogger is a gay Tory: http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/

The liberal parties are some way ahead, with 6 or 7 openly gay men (but only one lesbian) sitting on the Labour benches, some had made Minister. Progress is slow, people on all parties are closeted (estimates by their out colagues suggest at least 10% of MP's are gay). However, if one would have said 10 years that the House of Lords would have a black female leader sitting along with a number of Black and Minority Ethnic collagues and include an openly gay muslim Peer one would be surprised. Many local councilors, Members of the European Parliament and even our Commissioner to the EU are quite open about their sexuality.

To come back to the point; outing has probably forced this change. Just this week it was said of the infamous Britsh Media "It's a fleet of runaway ICB diggers without drivers or brakes, beyond accountability or control even by those who nominally run them" and "a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits,". MP's have been caught out on Gaydar, their rent boys have been tracked down, their calls to chatlines unearthed. the Conservatives had a string of sex scandals and indescretions with guardsmen in some of the royal parks. The vast majority went to fee-paying boarding schools, and many acknowledge being "situationally gay" at the time. Just recently, a Tory Prime Minister of the 70s', the late Ted Heath, had his homosexuality discussed in the papers, as has one of the Queen's uncles . It's not always respectful or tasteful, but when it is in the papers, tit forces people to confront reality.

Oran Taran said...

>Newsflash, people: if you dare to espouse any moral principle whatsoever, you too are a hypocrite.

Which means you're a hypocrite because you yourself made some mighty nasty criticisms, red herring, and presumptuous points right?

Do you disagree that he was a hypocrite? If not, then do you agree that bad acts should be punished and good ones rewarded?

If everyone followed the "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" principle, there would be no such thing as jails, punishment, etc.

Everyone has stolen SOMETHING (an eraser maybe?). Therefore, using your own logic, we shouldn't send identity thieves to jail right?

My point is that one: even if our hypocritical actions were at the same level as his, he still deserved what he got, and two: not everyone (I know I don't anyway) does things that are THAT hypocritical, and equating the two is simply silly.

Lewd & Lascivious said...

Yes, we're all hypocrites. So if that's all you have against someone, your argument is pitifully weak.

It's interesting to me that the very people demanding tolerance and compassion from their "evil" opponents are the most arrogantly high-handed and unforgiving when it comes to the personal moral failings of other people--even their OWN people. Clearly, Oran Toran, you and some others feel qualified to rank the personal errors of other people: where you obtained those lofty credentials, I don't know. But if it helps justify your enjoyment at watching others tarred and feathered, if they're "bad enough" in your book that is, then go ahead and indulge yourself.

As for the attempted assault on my reasoning abilities, nice try. The reason we put people in prison for identity theft and a host of other acts is because those acts are defined by society as CRIMES. There's a big difference between a criminal act and concealing one's sexual orientation. This thread concerns an inherently moral issue, not the legal system or enforcement of the criminal code. The standards for debating those categories of issues are different, and for good reason. It's what separates criticizing truly public figures like Paris Hilton or Robert Bork(whose abuses of the legal system I have recently and sharply criticized), and picking out some no-name kid to kick around on the national media stage.

It's pretty clear that Tyler was wrong to actively work against gays when he himself was gay. But outing him publicly is not the appropriate way to point out that mistake. In no way is this kid a public figure, and it is utterly wrong to launch him into the public spotlight because he engaged in self-hating behavior as a TEENAGER.

My argument is that when it comes to something as intensely personal and difficult as coming out of the closet, that is THEIR business to disclose or not disclose, when and if they want to, PERIOD. The ends of outting don't justify the means: good political results don't excuse the shitty, invasive means used to produce them.

I'm also saying, with no hesitation whatsoever, that if you feel you entitled to punish the personal bad acts of people (as you see them, anyway) by publicly humiliating them, it may not be illegal but it says a lot of bad things about you. The honorable and morally correct thing to do when you have a problem with someone is to approach them one-on-one with your concerns and criticisms. What's pathetic is having to explain these basic moral principles to intelligent grown-ups.

I mentioned my own error in order to point out that we all have moral failings, and the important thing is to learn from them and not repeat the error. That is using personal experience and learning to illustrate a larger moral point, which is NEVER a red herring.

But hey, if you feel entitled to be the high-handed judge of the personal lives of strangers; if you get off on that and need it on some emotional level, then go ahead and do your thang. Justify it however you can--whatever gets you through the night.

One last thought: if conservative Christians were going around outting gays in this nasty, public manner, they would rightfully be lambasted for it. Why is it ok for gays to do it to one another? Seems to me it's even worse. If some of you spent half the time working for change that you spend nosing around in everyone else's closets, maybe you yourself could make life better for gays in this country, instead of destroying people who don't do that job for you.

Oran Taran said...

Ad hominems, red herring, straw men, non-sequiturs, and other fallacies for which I don't know the name.

All I'll say is that I'm a teenager too, and I expect my actions to have consequences. If he is old enough to go to war, he is old enough to be held responsible for his actions. He's not a baby.

Lewd & Lascivious said...

Fine. Then I'm sure you'll have no problem being nationally humiliated as punishment for your every indiscretion. But of course you say these things knowing full well you'll never be held to the standard you set for others. What goes around comes around: something you'll learn as you mature and realize you're not quite as qualified to punish the mistakes of others as you think you are. I had to learn that the hard way, and you probably will too.

You might want to read up on those logical fallacies you cite. I don't think you understand what they mean, because I didn't commit any of them. Although it's good you're paying attention in class and trying to learn advanced principles of reasoning: keep at it and you'll be able to accurately use them one day!
Smooches,
Lewd

Oran Taran said...

>Then I'm sure you'll have no problem being nationally humiliated as punishment for your every indiscretion.

Nope.

Ok enough. We've hijacked the comments for long enough. Besides, I'm not in the mood for childish arguing.

Icon said...

Jeez, I hope we've heard the end of this!

Jeremy said...

"The chapter (YAF) is listed as a hate organization by the Southern Poverty Center, not because of its activities towards the gay community ..."

And your point is? The KKK is on the same list and not for anti-gay actions.

"it is difficult for someone who is now so publicly gay (thanks to this little outing) to get another position among the conservative policy orgs."

You keep stating this with no proof whatsoever. There are numerous gays working in these organizations, including AEI and Heritage. I'm not trying to be rude, but obviously you don't get around much. If you get down to the staff level, I would conservatively estimate there are in the range of 75-100 semi-out gay men in the policy organizations alone not even including the advisory boards.

You keep dissing other gay Republicans. Can you please name at least one gay Republican currently active in the Party who you consider acceptable?

"I doubt my parents or my non-political friends have ever heard of him. Of these folks, how many have had the kind of outing that Tyler did?"

You are blowing this way out of proportion. 99.999% of the people who actually work for current Presidential candidates would not even recognize the name Tyler Whitney. Actually I would be surprised if even a single one was aware of him. This is all occuring in only a small offshoot of a subset of a clique within the gay press.

"One of the overarching purposes of my blog is to DEMONSTRATE that my sexual orientation doesn't have to dictate my positions on issues such as taxes, national security, government spending, gun control, the regulation of business or anything else that doesn't ahve to do with being gay."

Hello? That is precisely what Tyler Whitney is doing so stop raggin on him.

Christopher said...

"One last thought: if conservative Christians were going around outting gays in this nasty, public manner, they would rightfully be lambasted for it. Why is it ok for gays to do it to one another?"

Read much? I find it hard to contain my laughter. You wrote several diatribes concerning this issue and apparently you aren't even aware of the most basic fact.

1. Tyler Whitney came out to his friends and family about two months ago.

2. His friends at the Michigan blog 'Conservative Dossier' benignly noted that he attending gay pride in DC to party with other gay men.

3. People debated whether or not it was hypocritical for an openly gay man to campaign for Tom Tancredo.

There was no 'outing' involved. How can you criticize people for simply debating whether or not it seems reasonable for a gay person to support Tancredo? These discussions go on every day and so far no one has died.

Pink Elephant said...

I'm confused, Jeremy. Why do you think I am ragging on Tyler? Is it because I considered his outing Hateful? Was it perhaps when I titled my follow-up post "I still feel sorry for Tyler?" The whole point of my bringing up this issue was to defend the kid.

Also, I am not sure what your primary point is. At first you seem to be supportive of this kid: "That is exactly what those of us who support him have been saying." But then you argue with every reason I give for supporting him. Really, I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you merely concerned that I am overreacting? Do you just like to argue? Please clarify.

Lewd & Lascivious said...

No outing occurred? Ok....well, there is a huge difference between quietly and gradually coming out to friends and family on your own terms--as Tyler was doing--and having other people hijack that personal process and spread it coast to coast. There's a difference between a few people knowing and the entire country knowing---as the author of this blog can attest. The original posts and the comments following have been about outing, not the general discussion of whether gays are allowed to campaign for Republicans. So yeah, I read much.
But I'm glad I could provide you with a few giggles, on general principle.

Matt said...

hehehe. i don't know if you were bargaining for a firestorm. i hope it's ok i linked to this.

Pink Elephant said...

Matt, must say that I too have been a little surprised by this firestorm, but not in a bad way. Feel free to link to anything you want :)

Jason said...

I'm going to add what bothers me most about this issue, since it seems to be very different from what everyone else is looking at.

Outing Tyler was an attack.

I honestly don't care if he deserved it or not, if he's a hypocrite or not, if he's anti-gay, if he's a convicted gay-basher.

It's all irrelevant.

They learned a secret about him... and used it publicly to hurt and humiliate him, or to hurt who he worked for, knowing it would hurt and humiliate him. Either way is the same thing for me.

It was an attack.

It doesn't matter what he's done or what you think of him. I don't care if he killed your family. To use personal information to embarrass and hurt someone like that is a very low act.

What hurts me most... is that as gays... this is what they have done to us. We have been run out of careers, towns, politics, etc. for years for what we've done in bed. It's been used to hurt and humiliate us... and now we're doing the same thing, like we've gotten all high and mighty and have forgotten what it's like to have that done to us.

I don't care what your situation is. To have something so personal, and so integral to your being dragged out in public and paraded around... it hurts. But to have that done just to mock you... I can't even imagine.

There is no justification for that. Ever. No one deserves to have that done to them.

Michael in Norfolk said...

Jason,

Everytime a closeted politician casts an anti-gay vote or a closeted campaign worker actively strives to elect an individual who will cast anti-gay votes, it is an attack on other gays.

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but hopefully the fear of being outed will make some of these folks think twice before they continue to work to "run us out of careers, towns, politics, etc. for years for what we've done in bed" and who we love.