Documentary Trolls GOP succesfully

[archibaldcrane]

I didn't know this was a right.

If he's lying to his constituents, and people have access to the truth, then yes, they have the right to illuminate said truth.

He's not just "no comment"ing his way through this issue.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I'm not The Finesse, nor am I going to start some ad hominem mud slinging contest. What's wrong with a little bit of intellectual discourse?

Or is your use of bold an attempt to make this a debate over whether he had a choice to engage in sexual activities with another man or not?

He's not debating the issue, he's now debating his first post. You fell victim to that and got an accusational dart to the face. You can play ball and argue moot points like archibald or be honest like you were and call it for what it is.

Honesty is not ad hominem when you're pointing out personal motivation behind a post that is obviously flawed for the sole purpose of protecting ones ego.

You're smart and know this, don't get sucked into a nonsensical debate by someone protecting nothing more than their ego and post count.

[thatwasnifty]

For starters, who are they? The religious right? Second what does my statement have to do with your post? I said that they're mostly concerned with marriage, and you then make a post about all the other things they apparently care about.

"They" referring to those closeted faggots who continually work to destroy the lives of LGBT people. For example, Larry Craig, Mike Foley, Ted Haggard, and Ed Schrock. My point was that they don't just campaign against equal marriage, which seems to be the only factor in your narrow definition of "hypocrite" here, they actively thwart attempts to extend any legal protection or solace to LGBT people. They identify with and are proud members of a political party whose platform is the continued subjugation of sexual minorities. They hold themselves up on some imaginary platform of morality and nobility while they judge theirs peers as immoral and filthy. Yet they are gay themselves. They desperately cling to their power and wealth while denying others the same opportunity to advance. That's hypocrisy.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

"They" referring to those closeted faggots who continually work to destroy the lives of LGBT people. For example, Larry Craig, Mike Foley, Ted Haggard, and Ed Schrock. My point was that they don't just campaign against equal marriage, which seems to be the only factor in your narrow definition of "hypocrite" here, they actively thwarts attempts to extend any legal protection or solace to LGBT people. They identify with and are proud members of a political party whose platform is the continued subjugation of sexual minorities. They hold themselves up on some imaginary platform of morality and nobility while they judge theirs peers as immoral and filthy. Yet they are gay themselves. They desperately cling to their power and wealth while denying others the same opportunity to advance. That's hypocrisy.

Good luck on a constructive response. All you'll get is a wordy, post count defending response about how you don't understand, let me twist your words and throw in enough rhetoric to make this salty pretzel salty.

[Rhinox]

Kuya: This isn't another one of your devil's advocate arguments is it? admittedly I skimmed through half the posts but it sure seems like it from what I read. Give me a tl:dr version of your position if you don't mind.

[Kuya]

I'm not The Finesse, nor am I going to start some ad hominem mud slinging contest. What's wrong with a little bit of intellectual discourse?

Or is your use of bold an attempt to make this a debate over whether he had a choice to engage in sexual activities with another man or not?

Don't know why the qualifier personal choice to have sex with men was placed there, it made me assume you wanted to just support the outing because it meant messing up a gay, even if said gay was anti-gay, as far as the posters here are concerned.

As to the point i think you were trying to get at, what exactly is your basis for saying that sex life is part of what a politician needs to be honest about when not illegal? Empirically, i don't recall politicians being forced to reveal what they do in private to the people they elect, and realistically, expecting a politician on the Republican side to reveal his non straight identity sounds counter-productive to most. But you'll have to help me out here, you're arguing he needs to be outed because he lied about being straight (apparently when elected he made an oath that he was 100% straight, apparently)?

Outing in general or in this particular circumstance?

I reiterate that the main thing that makes this particular outing a negative thing for him is because of the situation he himself created. He denies it, he votes against gay causes (and forgive me for wearing my socially liberal hat but this will be judged in the future as opponents to interracial marriage are judged now), he makes his sexuality into a weapon. There are lawmakers, even in the midwest (Tammy Baldwin) for whom gay sexuality isn't a handicap. It's not about outing as a weapon in general, it's only a weapon because he's made it one.

I assume he's a hypocrite because I don't think that if he came to terms with his own sexuality that he would continue to vote against things like adoption rights. That is just vile and an opinion for the ignorant - gay people aren't ignorant about what it means to be gay. When he votes in that way, he is either A) In denial of his own proclivities and uses his vote to attempt to publicly reject his natural state, B) Kowtowing to his party even knowing what he is doing is wrong. For straight people there's a C) thinking that gay people are not capable of properly raising children...but he's gay. He knows that's bullshit. A and B are also, frankly, unacceptable.

I assume he's a liar, not just about his sexuality, but also about his rationale for voting the way he does. You can give him the benefit of the doubt and say "he's just confused" - fine. But let the populace know that it's one or the other. I don't believe him or trust him, and that's because he has more relevant experience in the matter than straight politicians. He should be -more- capable of properly ruling in these matters, but his closeted status renders him even less so. Outing him, ultimately, could make him a better politician.

They're doing it for his own good.

I'm liking this argument.

Leaving the hypocrisy thing out for a bit, seeing as how i don't think you're arguing that that's specifically why he should be outed, i should also, again, state that whether it harms him or not, it's not the issue i've been making central for now, maybe i'm just not making myself clear, but let me reiterate:

Using outing has no single effect, you say that it may be good for him, you say that he caused it himself, all that might be true, but beyond that, the act still involves the revelation (it is a revelation anymore?) of somebody's sexuality (perhaps i should just replace sexuality with gay), it involves uncovering some hidden truth, the truth here being someone's sexuality, it is an inquisition that for some reason isn't used on everybody. It isn't used on everyone else, because everyone else is normal, the truth that is being sought out is a weird, abnormal and odd truth that for some reason is absolutely necessary that it be revealed. You don't out a straight person (you assume they're straight, and there's no reason to doubt the normal), you only out what's abnormal, and that is homosexuality.

But what does that even mean? We know that in reality homosexuality is considered abnormal, odd, strange, so why should it matter that outing predisposes that the previous is a fact? For the same reason that if women are considered sexually conservative, you don't try to propagate it via your actions, because you don't want it to be a reality in the future, you oppose its propagation (similarly you oppose the propagation of homosexuality as a negative by censoring yourself in regards to the use of the words fag and gay in pejorative manners, though this is, strangely, even harder to do while appearing the easiest). The situation is the same here where it, for whatever many effects it may have, and for whatever many reasons those who use it have, propagates homosexuality as that abnormal thing that you need to pull out from hiding amongst the normal. You don't interrogate a homosexual (a declared one) to reveal his hidden heterosexuality (the one that he is hiding) because you don't hide what's normal.

In regards to the other things you said, you essentially revealed to me what i already thought most of you thought. What i mean to say is that gay identity is not only some absolute truth that you can only hide and not produce, but it also constitutes some moral imperatives that modify conduct, this is what you think. It is, once again, the naturalization of homosexual identity. You already said you assume, and you certainly have no shame in doing so, because you certainly believe it to be the truth regardless of the formalities. What you say implies that there's some absolutely truthful gay identity with all its qualities, and that anyone who's not in sync with it simply hasn't accepted it yet. You've explained no reason as to why it's some absolute truth, and instead naturalized it to the point that to you predispose there's only one type of gay, and he's just not accepted it. What do i use to represent this? I use your point c, because it seemingly never occurred to you that he may believe the only way to raise children is with a female and a male, which is a belief in the strength of traditional norms.

What does that mean? You ignored, unwillingly i gather, that he may just be socially conservative and likes men (only), because in your head, it someone leads to dissonance the idea of someone being socially conservative and gay. You reconcile this by simply going about that homosexual conduct means homosexual identity means incompatibility with social conservatism. If he engages into homosexual conduct then that means he's gay and that means if he has socially conservative policies (specifically directed at the gay community) then they must be lies, because his nature is homosexuality and those two are incompatible.

You know what i think is more effective in convincing more people, not only into accepting a gay identity, but supporting gay priorities? Instead of outing which propagates the archetype of the homosexual as the hidden oddity that disrupts the order of things, the real goal to preventing things like these is formulating a plural identity for the gay community, creating a structured difference between segments of the gay community and having it be institutionalized, but this requires two sacrifices for the gay community, one is more, this is the ironic part, acceptance of those other identities and practices they rejected, the second, which is the hardest, is to accept a delay into being accepted by straight culture because you are no longer creating a single image they will accept, but rather many that might make it hard to "swallow". Even more than those gay parades, trust me.

[Kuya]

Kuya: This isn't another one of your devil's advocate arguments is it? admittedly I skimmed through half the posts but it sure seems like it from what I read. Give me a tl:dr version of your position if you don't mind.

Outing a gay because he went against what the gay community wants is like telling the homophobe to stop being gay(hint: not literally) already and accept gays.

[archibaldcrane]

Kuya - it's possible that he's just a good 'ol social conservative with no sexual hangups that affect his judgment on the issue.

I just think it's more likely that he's not. That's why I assume. I know that I don't know, but I assume because I consider it substantially more likely. He's already a liar, his continued closet-case status points to me that he's not looking at this stuff from the point of view of a sexually healthy individual. I know that being gay doesn't mean you believe certain things, but it sure as hell increases the likelihood of certain things, such as not being against the rights of people just because they are gay (forget this man/woman raising the child stuff, when he's campaigning to stop single people from adopting then we'll chat).

He's got problems with his sexuality. I'm extrapolating that to his decisions based on other people's sexuality. I -could- be wrong, but I doubt it. Regardless, he's lying to his constituents, and they should be provided with the truth so -they- can decide individually.

Do you think his lying is ok in this situation? Do you think his constituents shouldn't be provided with the truth, considering his statements on the matter? If not, why not?

Also, I don't like to offend social conservatives by looping them automatically into the "gays are evil" camp, I think it's insulting. I think people who like to sport-fuck gays in the not fun way don't belong in any sort of overarching categorical spectrum from liberal to conservative - it's insulting to social conservatives.

[Kuya]

Another example of what i mean when i say that there are multiple effects inherent in the way mechanisms are made, and by that i mean methods that you use are language, and language carry with it meanings and context. The example i refer to is when Obama was accused of being Muslim. Most people responded to the accusation of being Muslims with something equal to: "No he's not!". What was the context of the accusation made, however? That being a Muslim is bad. A lot of people didn't notice this and simply responded to the question directly while ignoring the multiple meanings it had embedded into it. The best answer would have been that Obama is not a Muslim, but a Christian, and even if he were there would be nothing wrong with that. The way it was answered denoted how anti-Muslim sentiments have become naturalized for some people, almost like part of the scenery.

[Kuya]

Kuya - it's possible that he's just a good 'ol social conservative with no sexual hangups that affect his judgment on the issue.

I just think it's more likely that he's not. That's why I assume. I know that I don't know, but I assume because I consider it substantially more likely. He's already a liar, his continued closet-case status points to me that he's not looking at this stuff from the point of view of a sexually healthy individual. I know that being gay doesn't mean you believe certain things, but it sure as hell increases the likelihood of certain things, such as not being against the rights of people just because they are gay (forget this man/woman raising the child stuff, when he's campaigning to stop single people from adopting then we'll chat).

He's got problems with his sexuality. I'm extrapolating that to his decisions based on other people's sexuality. I -could- be wrong, but I doubt it. Regardless, he's lying to his constituents, and they should be provided with the truth so -they- can decide individually.

Do you think his lying is ok in this situation? Do you think his constituents shouldn't be provided with the truth, considering his statements on the matter? If not, why not?

Also, I don't like to offend social conservatives by looping them automatically into the "gays are evil" camp, I think it's insulting. I think people who like to sport-fuck gays in the not fun way don't belong in any sort of overarching categorical spectrum from liberal to conservative - it's insulting to social conservatives.

Because i am not straight, fighting the inherent mountain that stands against anything not straight is more important to me, more so than a constituent not being honest with whether he likes the boys or the girls. I even speculate that i wouldn't care in a different context, because i find caring about what the representative likes to be completely immaterial unless it be illegal. Oh, but he is gay and he is anti-gay rights! Can't say i care for the contradictions in his life, but if he were my representative, i'd care more about him voting more in favour of gay rights rather than his personal hang ups, or even more importantly, why i voted for him in the first place. That's in regards to your hypothetical situation.

[archibaldcrane]

What is this, Seinfeld?

I think his continued closeted status, in 2009, well past puberty and teenage years and etc. etc. etc. points to a serious problem, one that should be addressed for someone who is responsible for making decisions regarding the rights of gay people. You clearly disagree - but I don't think you're thinking of the discussion in this manner.

[Kuya]

As a queer theorist, i can't say it's surprising that i have enough contempt for unitary sexual identities to not care whether someone is out or not or what that even means. I remember what my brother told me not too long ago: "It's the 21st century, nobody comes out anymore". Maybe straight people haven't caught on to that yet.

[archibaldcrane]

Ok, I realize there could be a measure of discord here. I'm assuming this guy is old-school totally in denial fucking guys but not letting that shake his faith that he is, in fact, a straight man-type of closet case. As opposed to a savvy hip "yeah right that would be political suicide I'll just fuck guys and stick to the story of being straight to better my career" type of closet case. The latter isn't...really what I think of as closeted, honestly. Did you have an opinion (as uneducated as our opinions can be not really knowing the dude) on ...how he is closeted? Both have their problems, in different ways in this situation.

And I'm all about rejecting the whole "you're either one or the other" sexual identity thing, but remember, this dude isn't from our generation. Not even close. He's from the "coming out is a super hard decision and will cost me 75% of my friends and family" generation.

Sex advice columnist Dan Savage once said something along the lines of "dating a gay man is kind of like dating a Vietnam War vet. They're here, and they seem ok, but they might've gone through some shit to get here." It's a bit of an exaggeration in 2009, but when this guy was growing up I think it's a pretty apt analogy.

[Beckwin]

it's almost like kuya is trying to suggest that "elite governing class secret (self-hating?) dude-fucker" is actually a legitimate/measurable part of the sexual spectrum while at the same time suggesting that a queer pride-parade flamboyant elite is the sole group going after them.

anyways, if you're so intent to nitpick semantics all day to run away from the term hypocrite, that's fine- you'll keep on with it forever just for the sake of it, so have fun. I don't see the reason to so frantically run away from terms, so I'll go ahead and roll with your choice of "traitor"- yes, those men are traitors. Not just to the predominate swath of the gay community, but to all who fall outside of heterosexuality. And ultimately, they are traitors to all human beings.

[archibaldcrane]

Also Kuya - if this guy was caught picking up a hooker (say, somewhere in Nevada where it is legal) and a gay activist was the only one with the info, would it be "acceptable" to you to expose this info to try to hurt his reelection efforts considering his anti-gay stance? What if he was caught smoking weed...in Amsterdam? Are legal 'private matters' all off limits, or just this one because it's not only pegging him as gay but also pegging that as a bad thing GIVEN HIS STANCES.

I think the info should just be out there, he'll have his chances to defend, deflect, no comment, whatever - but just because in this particular instance being gay makes him look badly to many, makes sexual identity into a weapon of his own creation, I don't think it should be off limits.

[Cyn]

While Kuya does seem to dwell on sexual orientation far more than pretty much anyone I've met in my life, I find it hard to believe that he's not just trolling at this point.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, it's hard to get too semantically obsessed with the word "hypocrite" when you yourself say:

Can't say i care for the contradictions in his life

[Beckwin]

Also, it's hard to get too semantically obsessed with the word "hypocrite" when you yourself say:

right; it's an intuitive label to apply but he shied away from it once it came into conflict with his ideas about outing being universally harmful for the gay/non-straight community, because the hypocrisy gives a very strong justification for the outing in this case.

[Kuya]

Ok, I realize there could be a measure of discord here. I'm assuming this guy is old-school totally in denial fucking guys but not letting that shake his faith that he is, in fact, a straight man-type of closet case. As opposed to a savvy hip "yeah right that would be political suicide I'll just fuck guys and stick to the story of being straight to better my career" type of closet case. The latter isn't...really what I think of as closeted, honestly. Did you have an opinion (as uneducated as our opinions can be not really knowing the dude) on ...how he is closeted? Both have their problems, in different ways in this situation.

And I'm all about rejecting the whole "you're either one or the other" sexual identity thing, but remember, this dude isn't from our generation. Not even close. He's from the "coming out is a super hard decision and will cost me 75% of my friends and family" generation.

Sex advice columnist Dan Savage once said something along the lines of "dating a gay man is kind of like dating a Vietnam War vet. They're here, and they seem ok, but they might've gone through some shit to get here." It's a bit of an exaggeration in 2009, but when this guy was growing up I think it's a pretty apt analogy.

I don't know what you mean by how he is closeted, and also, you're putting a lot of weight on the sexual identity thing when i only really brought it up as a response to your assumptions. The core argument remains that outing is simply wrong on the basis that it always carries the negative i mentioned. It's loosely related to how i oppose torture not on the grounds that it didn't work, but on the basis that it is morally disgusting and dehumanizing.

Also Kuya - if this guy was caught picking up a hooker (say, somewhere in Nevada where it is legal) and a gay activist was the only one with the info, would it be "acceptable" to you to expose this info to try to hurt his reelection efforts considering his anti-gay stance? What if he was caught smoking weed...in Amsterdam? Are legal 'private matters' all off limits, or just this one because it's not only pegging him as gay but also pegging that as a bad thing GIVEN HIS STANCES.

I think the info should just be out there, he'll have his chances to defend, deflect, no comment, whatever - but just because in this particular instance being gay makes him look badly to many, makes sexual identity into a weapon of his own creation, I don't think it should be off limits.

You're still insisting on the idea that the context will somehow change my stance, and i thought i was pretty clear on it too. I think that outing is, pretty much, always wrong. It always propagates negative notions of homosexuality and therefore i oppose it. You think the truth should be out there, that's fine, but you don't put the same emphasis as i do on eliminating culture's notions of homosexuality. I have my motivations and you have yours, but the ones who are motivated by some notion of helping out gays should probably think twice.

As for the hypocrisy bit, maybe it's my fault for even given the notion time of day and somehow making it seem legitimate as a justification for outing when i quite explicitly stated why i oppose it, which left no notion of exception. I'll bring up the torture example again (incidentally, i intend to bump the thread with new info): I absolutely oppose torture (no, torture and outing aren't being directly compared here, so don't even bring that up), it doesn't matter to me whether it worked or not, it is always wrong. Not only that, but it is also illegal. Similarly, i oppose outing because to me, it is always wrong, and it doesn't matter whether it "works" or not. Some people, specifically conservatives might not agree with the former (probably cause those implicated in torture are conservatives), while liberals seem to oppose me on the latter (an assumption on my part, but it seems that this is a nice opportunity to stick it to some GOP douchebags).

Here are some examples of conservative homosexuals:

Gay political commentator Andrew Sullivan:

He is pro same sex marriage, but opposes anti discrimination laws, also, note Warner's comment which i somewhat agree with.

In the book, Sullivan examines and proceeds to criticize mainstream liberal, conservative, as well the "prohibitionist" (far right) and "liberationist" (far left) political views on homosexuality. He argues for a politics of homosexuality, that supports privacy rights and equal government treatment, but does not support private sector anti-discrimination laws. While Sullivan does not identify it as such, it is very similar to the Libertarian perspectives on LGBT rights.

The classical liberal, possible conservative-libertarian, tone of the book, prompted Michael Warner, a Yale University English professor to write The Trouble With Normal, which argued that Sullivan's desire to normalize gay men and lesbians through marriage was a dangerous move that would leave those individuals—straight, gay, or otherwise—who did not want to marry without appropriate governmental and societal respect or protection.

Sullivan has been very critical of civil unions, which he has dubbed "marriage lite." He has argued that civil unions will only serve to weaken the unique status of marriage, both for gays and lesbians and heterosexuals.

On other LGBT rights issues he has opposed all hate crime laws, arguing that they undermine freedom of speech and equal protection.[29] He has opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, arguing that it will, "not make much of a difference" and stated that the "gay rights establishment" was wrong to oppose a version of the bill that did not also include gender identity.[30]

Conservative writer, talk show host, and lesbian Tammy Bruce, who even disagrees with Sullivan on marriage:

But the debate over the idea of gay marriage has brought out concerns by one extremist end that it will lead to people marrying their livestock to Gay Gestapo charges of homophobic bigotry against those opposed to same-sex nuptials.

Neither accusation is valid, so as an independent gay woman, I think it’s time to make a few things clear. First of all, despite what you hear from the Gay Elite, there is not a consensus in the gay community about this issue. We do not all operate in the cultural or political equivalent of a Vulcan mind-meld.

Gays ultimately need to stop looking to government for unconditional love and approval of who we are. Andrew Sullivan, a political commentator and writer many of you know and respect, wrote a piece for Time magazine where he actually equated governmental recognition of gay marriage as a necessary element to all gay people feeling accepted and wanted. He claimed that anything other than marriage will “build a wall between gay people and their own families.”

While his story was personal and moving, the argument was, frankly, nonsense, and representative of the general mentality among the gay elite. It also gives the government and other people’s opinions far too much power over the quality of our lives and effectively eliminates our own responsibility for our happiness.

Part of the fight for gay marriage is based in Sullivan’s lament—that it is only governmental recognition of who are that will make us whole. Let’s get real—the only thing that will make gay people whole is personal acceptance of ourselves by ourselves. Instead, we are still looking to Mommy or Daddy, now in the form of Society, to tell us we’re “okay” – to sanctify, if you will, our lives and relationships.

You may not agree with their other opinions (and God help you if you insist that because they're wrong-in your opinion- about something, they must be full of shit with everything else), but they represent an honest and highly complex view on the issue. I certainly hope this was enlightening for you guys if you've never heard of gay conservatives expressing their opposing views.

[Rhinox]

What I want to know is where was the black leaders that didn't want Anti-discrimination laws and why didn't they speak up!? Now we got suffer through desegregated schools and drinking from the same fountain that the porch monkeys drink from.

but no.... the 'nigger Elite' had to open their mouths and they themselves were pretty racist, bigoted and intolerant against the god-fearing honest white man that was trying to look out for the rest of us.