Faith is now quite uncertain. I'm no longer acting-as-if.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
SHOULD THEY BE OUTED?
Should closeted LGTB hypocrites who bash others of like sexual orientations be outed? Would you out a basher if you were certain the LGTB person was a hypocrite?
I do not speak of people who choose to stay closeted and do no harm to others.
I love that line (attributed to +Barbara Harris) that says something like: "You are free to stay in the closet--but you are NOT free to turn it into a sniper's nest."
I was harming no one when someone outed me and it was not a pleasant experience. But in the long run it transformed my life for the better. I will not apply my story to anyone else, though.
In any case bashers forfeit their closets. Period.
Doxy, I like Barbara Harris' line, too. I ask the question, in part, because I don't think I could bring myself to out a gay basher, although whether I would or not might depend on the circumstances.
Yes. I have. And I would out a gay person who was not doing harm to anyone else if I was 100% convinced that outing him or her would stop others being harmed by others. If I was less than 100% convinced I would have to think about it very carefully.
I like the +Barbara quote. If someone is in the closet, they need to live in that closet and not drag me down because I choose to live my life out of the closet. Ultimately, I want a society where closets really are just for clothes.
I think the sniper's nest quote is originally from Louie Crew, but I could be mistaken.
I share MP's concern about certainty -- that is, I think outing a hypocrite is fine, as long as one knows that the person actually is a hypocrite, rather than simply a bigot. Otherwise it is libel (or slander), and I think if what we are concerned about is "truth-telling" we have to be absolutely sure we are telling the truth.
Yes, of course, one would have to be certain the person was a hypocrite. I edited my post to clarify the point, following my motto: Post first; edit later.
But what if you knew that outing a gay person, who had never hurt anybody, would result in showing the hypocrisy of an institution that is constantly acting in a homophobic manner. For example, what if you knew that an archbishop of Canterbury who, miraculously, was not condemning gays in particular, was gay himself. Outing him would show the complete and utter silliness of the Church of England's present stance.
I would out him even if he was a living saint on all other matters and even if it might get him the sack and ruin his life. But then, if I could go back in time and kill Hitler as a child I would do it. I'm a Utilitarian on most matters when there is no straightforward answer to a moral question.
MP, that's a good point. I think the analogy is with collaborators in a war-time occupation. They may be doing no direct harm themselves, but their collaboration is part of the damnable machine.
My only concern is the person who might appear to be a collaborator but is working from the inside like Schindler -- and then, from a Utilitarian perspective, more harm might be done by the "outing."
Still, truth is truth, and in the long run that's the stuff that's supposed to "make us free."
The Bishop of York may believe that being gay is not a sin, but he is campaigning against same sex marriage whilst maintaing that sex outside of marriage is a sin. So what if we were to out all the gay clergy in York diocese who are living with their partners? Heck, what if we just started outing the gay bishops in his province? I don't think there would be much damage to the individuals concerned as most of them are now living with their partners quite openly and those who have got themselves hitched in civil ceremonies have already told their congregations about it.
MP, I don't think you should out non-snipers. You don't know all their circumstances (e.g., parents who don't know) and you don't know the results (what if proceedings were brought against them for sexual immorality, what if they were quietly working on their colleagues and bishop so the next bishop has different views [getting to know someone and feel positive about them before realizing they are LGBTI is probably a good way of changing prejudices]).
Erp and Mimi, your decision is based on not wanting to hurt the individual concerned. But many others may be released from their hurt if you did out that individual. Therefore, you would be guilty of continuing a great hurt by avoiding a smaller hurt. There is an element in this of avoiding the issue, of washing your hands of it.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying that there is no easy answer to the question of to out or not to out.
ummmm.... I hope I wouldn't. I haven't, yet. I would speak to them privately, show them the hurt, the destruction, the hypocrisy. But, no, I hope I wouldn't out them unwillingly even from their sniper closet. It's tempting. But it's wrong. Threatening to do so is blackmail. Doing so is the follow through on blackmail --to participate in the spiritual violence.
And yes, even if that person were my boss, my bishop --I would continue to work for full inclusion, for full civil rights and liberty, even at risk to myself.
Why have so many of you decided that to protect privacy is a higher moral obligation than freeing the oppressed? To me it seems to be a cop out. By making privacy your primary moral obligation you can avoid ever having to make a more complicated, potentially incorrect and damaging choice. But we would still be living in caves if we took that attitude to life.
When you make a decision to cause harm, even to an oppressor, the resulting consequences cannot all be anticipated beforehand. How can you be sure outing the person would stop the oppression? What if the person committed suicide after the outing? When I think about outing someone, anyone, I don't believe I could do it.
Of course, since I am straight, I have not been on the receiving end of anti-gay abuse. The worst I've been called is a fag hag. I may think differently if I had suffered the kind of abuse from homophobes that my LGTB sisters and brother endure.
(1) the original quote about sniper's nest came from Louie Crew.
(2) I do not think "straight" people have a say in whether or not to "out" closeted people. It's the same principle as the understanding that White people can't use the "N" word while people of color can. I appreciate the sense of justice in any attempt to out closeted people but really, you know, LGBT people are not helpless victims. What I hate almost more than homophobia is to feel obligated to someone for defending me when I didn't even ask them for their help. Suddenly, it's all about the hero and not about the oppression or the oppressed - whether the 'hero' sub or unconsciously intended it or not.
(3) I have learned that the most effective "outing" is done privately, behind closed doors, with the closeted person by other LGBT people. I've seen this done over and over and over again with most excellent results. It takes time. It requires patience. It also demands that well-intentioned straight people back the f off and let us clean up the messes in our own houses in our own way and in our own time.
(4) Clearly, I've been doing LGBT activism too long. I am so weary of these kinds of conversations. This is not a criticism of your post Mimi b/c I'm quite certain it remains important to flag every now and again. It's just that I, personally - me, Elizabeth - find myself weary to the bone that it is still an important issue to raise from time to time.
There, that ought to sufficiently piss off MP. Not that I intended to. I have found that I can piss off MP just by drawing my next breath. I. Don't. Care. You asked, Mimi. I answered. This is your blog. Which I love. Thank you for asking. I think. Hope it was helpful.
I don't know what to say, Elizabeth. You seem to be saying that LGBT people, black people and (elsewhere and often) women are a definably different species of human. I thought we had got rid of that sort of nonsense when we defeated Hitler. In fact, what the heck have we been fighting for?
And nobody is engaging with the question of relative moralities. Why is privacy and personal choice a more important moral consideration than telling a truth that possibly would stop lots more people from future harm?
1. Elizabeth, I asked, and you answered, and I thank you. Thanks for the confirmation that Louie Crew said the 'sniper's nest' quote.
2. I had not the least idea that for straight folks to discuss outing was offensive and akin to the use of the 'n' word by white folks. Surely, you did not mean that straight people should not be part of advocacy for equality and justice for LGTB people. What then is the purpose of organizations like Integrity? I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not expect gratitude from anyone for doing what I believe is right, nor should anyone feel obligated to me for speaking out for the rights of LGTB persons.
3. I presume you read what I've said about outing people, so I've already effed off, so to speak, as you suggest.
4. You may be weary of this conversation, but others of us are not. The question is one of ethics, which I have hardly discussed at all, but perhaps I should not even bring up the matter. Perhaps it's for LGTB folks to discuss in their own enclaves. If so, then pardon me. I did not know the rules. Please note that I am not talking about LGTB persons; I am discussing the matter with them and paying close attention to the responses.
Yes, I asked, and you answered, Elizabeth, and I thank you again.
June - I was talking about outing people. I don't think straight people should - even if the person is a monster. We need - and deeply appreciate - the advocacy and friendship and compassion and love of our straight friends and family members for other political battles. (I apologize for not making that more clear). What I'm saying is, unless we ask for help, let us handle our own monsters.
I'm not saying that women, LGBT people and people of color are different species. Don't put words in my mouth, MP. But we do have a community formed around a basis of shared experience. There are things I can never know about being a white male. Y'all bond and have community - well, wherever it is ya'll do that. Same thing with women. We have and experience relationships differently. We talk among ourselves differently. Same with people of color. There are things I'll never really know and places of that community to which I'll never have full access. That doesn't make us different species. It makes us different human beings.
I'm saying we don't need straight people to rescue us. We'll ask if we want/need your help. We don't need heroes. We need allies. I'm saying please respect that.
I understand that this raises some people's hackles. I know how I feel when I see a differently abled person in a wheelchair who I think may need some help getting through the door and that person growls and me and says, "I got this."
There's nothing worse than being a handicapped person and having an abled body person demonstrate that for you but rushing to your aid before you even asked. So, I stand back and if it looks like the person might need some help, I ask first. But, I don't use the word "help". Makes it worse, I've been told. I've been told to ask, "Can I get the door for you?" Or, "You dropped your scarf/glove. Can I get it for you?" There's nothing better than being a handicapped person and accomplishing something on your own.
No, I'm not saying that women, LGBT people or people of color are handicapped. I'm trying to give an example of what it means to be able to take care of yourself and your own business and your own community's business and "respect the dignity of every human being".
That about as relative a morality as "relative moralities" can get.
There are no rules about discussion. Discuss all you want. I was just telling you how it makes me feel. Last I heard, expressing one's feelings was allowed by the rules of this blog. If not, shoot me.
I'm done here. I probably shouldn't have entered the conversation in this weary state of mind. I know better. I've learned not to get into a tussle with a skunk. It just pisses them off and you get to smell badly for weeks. And, this particular conversation is a skunk at an LGBT garden party if there ever was one.
Thanks for posting this conversation, Mimi. I hope the discussion is helpful to you and to others who need to discuss the ethics of the situation. I apologize if I set a negative tone in any way. As I said, I'm just weary of this battle which seems to pop up at least several times a year in some form in the LGBT community. I'll keep my mouth shut now. I'll come back and visit in a few days. All the best to you and yours.
MP, you said, "So to let people suffer even when you can stop it is okay, Margaret?"
I can't stop the suffering. Only the "sniper" can.
You know, all Jesus had to do was call in all the angels, smack Pilate a good one and frighten the people to death and force the sin out of 'em... but he didn't.
And, yes, I think I understand what Elizabeth is saying. Working on the Rez, I would never presume to think I know "what the Indians need." --it's gotta come from the people. Just sayin'.
If I'm going to do major harm to another, I'm going to have to be pretty damned sure about what I'm doing and have thought through to the possible consequences, plus I'd have to be close to certain that my action will have the wished for result. I don't think outing a gay-bashing hypocrite could pass those tests.
MP, Jesus made no mistake. If he had done the things Margaret mentioned to save himself, I would not be his follower today. It's not true that nothing changed, because I've changed and I know others have changed because Jesus did not use his Godly power to vanquish his enemies. What was it that empowered his disciples to spread his message in the face of persecution after Jesus' bodily presence was no longer present with them? There is great power in powerlessness.
There is a novel from the 1950s called Advise and Consent in which a young and well-respected senator was "outed" (although that term wasn't actually used). The person who did the "outing" sincerely believed that he was acting for the greater good (the outed senator was blocking a political appointment that the "outer" fervently supported). In the end, the outed senator committed suicide, and the political appointee was rejected. So, the only people who ended up benefiting were those who opposed the appointment.
Similarly, there are some who would argue that the greater good is served by outing closeted bishops and priests so that they can be weeded out. That's not what MP has in mind, but it's an example of how outing someone for the greater good can backfire.
I'm also curious whether anyone can cite an example where outing one person has benefited others.
En passant et sans vouloir faire dérailler la conversation, in response to MP's earlier analogy, while it's easy to suppose that the world would have been a better place if Hitler had died as a child (or better yet, had never been conceived in the first place), we don't know that for a fact.It's possible that someone else just as bad, or even worse, would have come along. That's why God is God, and we aren't.
Mimi said, "It's not true that nothing changed, because I've changed and I know others have changed because Jesus did not use his Godly power to vanquish his enemies. What was it that empowered his disciples to spread his message in the face of persecution after Jesus' bodily presence was no longer present with them?"
Yes. And, it was radical welcoming love --even love for one's enemies, that empowered the disciples.
And, yes MP --Christians have got it wrong --real wrong, in every generation. But, many got it right too. It is that hope that keeps me going.
As is often true, Elizabeth has made me uncomfortable and that is a very good thing. I can slip easily into rescuer mode, and Elizabeth is right that that's presumptuous. Our response to gay bashing does not need to change when we think or even know that the sniper is gay. Gay bashing is simply wrong and we condemn it. The assertion that staying in the closet always harms others is far too sweeping. Staying in the closet may, and actually has, been a reasonable decision for some folks that I know. Harm, of course, is something we cause without knowing it. We're workers harmed in producing the iPad on which I am typing? Do I harm others, as a friend once told me, when I use a drive up window at the bank? Beyond those fairly simple examples are the ethical dilemmas which we face when two competing values are in play. Does telling the truth always trump loyalty to one's friends? If ethics were simple, we wouldn't need ethics courses in theological schools and Harvard's Michael Sandel wouldn't attract hundreds of students to his class on justice.
As far as I'm concerned, a toxic hypocrite is a toxic hypocrite, and if he's outed by JoeMyGod or the NYTimes then a service is done for everyone.
It was the Miami New Times that employs both straight and gay reporters that brought down George Rekers by catching him at the airport with his rent boy as he returned from a holiday in Spain. Rekers was a star "expert" for the homophobes. That was a big catch that arguably changed the direction and momentum of a lot of court cases.
If the straight folk want to slay an ogre for us, then it's fine with me. Instead of feeling obliged, I think we should feel encouraged to go out and slay more of them on our own. And since our straight friends frequently take a beating for taking our side (eg, our outspokenly gay friendly landlady is no longer welcome in her church), I see no cause to begrudge them some hypocrite's head on a pike.
Thank you all for your comments. I'm pleased that so many of you took the trouble to weigh in with opinions, especially you, my LGTB sisters and brothers, because you, above all, need to be part of this conversation. A diversity of opinions have been expressed here, and I'm grateful for them all. Though some of you may be weary of the discussion on outing, I am not. In fact, I've hardly discussed the matter at all. Although my question generated a bit of heat, I'm not sorry for my post, because I learned a lot from your responses, and I've been forced to think, which is no bad thing.
Paul Powers, thanks for the reminder of Advise and Consent, which I read back in the day. The law of unintended consequences is always in the back of my mind when I have to make difficult decisions.
I love that line (attributed to +Barbara Harris) that says something like: "You are free to stay in the closet--but you are NOT free to turn it into a sniper's nest."
ReplyDeleteHell yes!
ReplyDeleteI was harming no one when someone outed me and it was not a pleasant experience. But in the long run it transformed my life for the better. I will not apply my story to anyone else, though.
In any case bashers forfeit their closets. Period.
Doxy, I like Barbara Harris' line, too. I ask the question, in part, because I don't think I could bring myself to out a gay basher, although whether I would or not might depend on the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteIn any case bashers forfeit their closets.
ReplyDeleteI like your line, too, Paul.
Yes. I have. And I would out a gay person who was not doing harm to anyone else if I was 100% convinced that outing him or her would stop others being harmed by others. If I was less than 100% convinced I would have to think about it very carefully.
ReplyDeleteMadPriest, your outing, if it was an outing, since many people already knew the man was gay, was partly the reason for my post.
ReplyDeleteI don't follow your second point.
YES with a warning first
ReplyDeleteI'm referring to my outing of Lindsay Urwin about three years ago following his signing of a letter of support for the San Joaquin schismatics.
ReplyDeleteI don't follow why you don't follow my second point.
Ann, I agree. If an outing is to be done, the person should be warned.
ReplyDeleteI like the +Barbara quote. If someone is in the closet, they need to live in that closet and not drag me down because I choose to live my life out of the closet. Ultimately, I want a society where closets really are just for clothes.
ReplyDeleteI think the sniper's nest quote is originally from Louie Crew, but I could be mistaken.
ReplyDeleteI share MP's concern about certainty -- that is, I think outing a hypocrite is fine, as long as one knows that the person actually is a hypocrite, rather than simply a bigot. Otherwise it is libel (or slander), and I think if what we are concerned about is "truth-telling" we have to be absolutely sure we are telling the truth.
Yes, of course, one would have to be certain the person was a hypocrite. I edited my post to clarify the point, following my motto: Post first; edit later.
ReplyDeleteMimi, I may have your motto done in needlepoint! ;-)
ReplyDeleteHave one made for me, too, Tobias?
ReplyDeleteBut what if you knew that outing a gay person, who had never hurt anybody, would result in showing the hypocrisy of an institution that is constantly acting in a homophobic manner. For example, what if you knew that an archbishop of Canterbury who, miraculously, was not condemning gays in particular, was gay himself. Outing him would show the complete and utter silliness of the Church of England's present stance.
ReplyDeleteI would out him even if he was a living saint on all other matters and even if it might get him the sack and ruin his life. But then, if I could go back in time and kill Hitler as a child I would do it. I'm a Utilitarian on most matters when there is no straightforward answer to a moral question.
Will do, Mimi. But keep breathing...
ReplyDeleteMP, that's a good point. I think the analogy is with collaborators in a war-time occupation. They may be doing no direct harm themselves, but their collaboration is part of the damnable machine.
My only concern is the person who might appear to be a collaborator but is working from the inside like Schindler -- and then, from a Utilitarian perspective, more harm might be done by the "outing."
Still, truth is truth, and in the long run that's the stuff that's supposed to "make us free."
The Bishop of York may believe that being gay is not a sin, but he is campaigning against same sex marriage whilst maintaing that sex outside of marriage is a sin. So what if we were to out all the gay clergy in York diocese who are living with their partners? Heck, what if we just started outing the gay bishops in his province? I don't think there would be much damage to the individuals concerned as most of them are now living with their partners quite openly and those who have got themselves hitched in civil ceremonies have already told their congregations about it.
ReplyDeleteps The "sniper's nest" comment is exceedingly good, regardless of source.
ReplyDeleteMP, I don't think you should out non-snipers. You don't know all their circumstances (e.g., parents who don't know) and you don't know the results (what if proceedings were brought against them for sexual immorality, what if they were quietly working on their colleagues and bishop so the next bishop has different views [getting to know someone and feel positive about them before realizing they are LGBTI is probably a good way of changing prejudices]).
ReplyDeleteErp. I agree. I would not out a person who chose to stay closeted but did no harm to others.
ReplyDeleteErp and Mimi, your decision is based on not wanting to hurt the individual concerned. But many others may be released from their hurt if you did out that individual. Therefore, you would be guilty of continuing a great hurt by avoiding a smaller hurt. There is an element in this of avoiding the issue, of washing your hands of it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying that there is no easy answer to the question of to out or not to out.
ummmm.... I hope I wouldn't. I haven't, yet. I would speak to them privately, show them the hurt, the destruction, the hypocrisy. But, no, I hope I wouldn't out them unwillingly even from their sniper closet. It's tempting. But it's wrong. Threatening to do so is blackmail. Doing so is the follow through on blackmail --to participate in the spiritual violence.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, even if that person were my boss, my bishop --I would continue to work for full inclusion, for full civil rights and liberty, even at risk to myself.
So to let people suffer even when you can stop it is okay, Margaret?
ReplyDeleteWhy have so many of you decided that to protect privacy is a higher moral obligation than freeing the oppressed? To me it seems to be a cop out. By making privacy your primary moral obligation you can avoid ever having to make a more complicated, potentially incorrect and damaging choice. But we would still be living in caves if we took that attitude to life.
ReplyDeleteWhen you make a decision to cause harm, even to an oppressor, the resulting consequences cannot all be anticipated beforehand. How can you be sure outing the person would stop the oppression? What if the person committed suicide after the outing? When I think about outing someone, anyone, I don't believe I could do it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, since I am straight, I have not been on the receiving end of anti-gay abuse. The worst I've been called is a fag hag. I may think differently if I had suffered the kind of abuse from homophobes that my LGTB sisters and brother endure.
(1) the original quote about sniper's nest came from Louie Crew.
ReplyDelete(2) I do not think "straight" people have a say in whether or not to "out" closeted people. It's the same principle as the understanding that White people can't use the "N" word while people of color can. I appreciate the sense of justice in any attempt to out closeted people but really, you know, LGBT people are not helpless victims. What I hate almost more than homophobia is to feel obligated to someone for defending me when I didn't even ask them for their help. Suddenly, it's all about the hero and not about the oppression or the oppressed - whether the 'hero' sub or unconsciously intended it or not.
(3) I have learned that the most effective "outing" is done privately, behind closed doors, with the closeted person by other LGBT people. I've seen this done over and over and over again with most excellent results. It takes time. It requires patience. It also demands that well-intentioned straight people back the f off and let us clean up the messes in our own houses in our own way and in our own time.
(4) Clearly, I've been doing LGBT activism too long. I am so weary of these kinds of conversations. This is not a criticism of your post Mimi b/c I'm quite certain it remains important to flag every now and again. It's just that I, personally - me, Elizabeth - find myself weary to the bone that it is still an important issue to raise from time to time.
There, that ought to sufficiently piss off MP. Not that I intended to. I have found that I can piss off MP just by drawing my next breath. I. Don't. Care. You asked, Mimi. I answered. This is your blog. Which I love. Thank you for asking. I think. Hope it was helpful.
I don't know what to say, Elizabeth. You seem to be saying that LGBT people, black people and (elsewhere and often) women are a definably different species of human. I thought we had got rid of that sort of nonsense when we defeated Hitler. In fact, what the heck have we been fighting for?
ReplyDeleteAnd nobody is engaging with the question of relative moralities. Why is privacy and personal choice a more important moral consideration than telling a truth that possibly would stop lots more people from future harm?
ReplyDelete1. Elizabeth, I asked, and you answered, and I thank you. Thanks for the confirmation that Louie Crew said the 'sniper's nest' quote.
ReplyDelete2. I had not the least idea that for straight folks to discuss outing was offensive and akin to the use of the 'n' word by white folks. Surely, you did not mean that straight people should not be part of advocacy for equality and justice for LGTB people. What then is the purpose of organizations like Integrity? I wish to make it perfectly clear that I do not expect gratitude from anyone for doing what I believe is right, nor should anyone feel obligated to me for speaking out for the rights of LGTB persons.
3. I presume you read what I've said about outing people, so I've already effed off, so to speak, as you suggest.
4. You may be weary of this conversation, but others of us are not. The question is one of ethics, which I have hardly discussed at all, but perhaps I should not even bring up the matter. Perhaps it's for LGTB folks to discuss in their own enclaves. If so, then pardon me. I did not know the rules. Please note that I am not talking about LGTB persons; I am discussing the matter with them and paying close attention to the responses.
Yes, I asked, and you answered, Elizabeth, and I thank you again.
June - I was talking about outing people. I don't think straight people should - even if the person is a monster. We need - and deeply appreciate - the advocacy and friendship and compassion and love of our straight friends and family members for other political battles. (I apologize for not making that more clear). What I'm saying is, unless we ask for help, let us handle our own monsters.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that women, LGBT people and people of color are different species. Don't put words in my mouth, MP. But we do have a community formed around a basis of shared experience. There are things I can never know about being a white male. Y'all bond and have community - well, wherever it is ya'll do that. Same thing with women. We have and experience relationships differently. We talk among ourselves differently. Same with people of color. There are things I'll never really know and places of that community to which I'll never have full access. That doesn't make us different species. It makes us different human beings.
I'm saying we don't need straight people to rescue us. We'll ask if we want/need your help. We don't need heroes. We need allies. I'm saying please respect that.
I understand that this raises some people's hackles. I know how I feel when I see a differently abled person in a wheelchair who I think may need some help getting through the door and that person growls and me and says, "I got this."
There's nothing worse than being a handicapped person and having an abled body person demonstrate that for you but rushing to your aid before you even asked. So, I stand back and if it looks like the person might need some help, I ask first. But, I don't use the word "help". Makes it worse, I've been told. I've been told to ask, "Can I get the door for you?" Or, "You dropped your scarf/glove. Can I get it for you?" There's nothing better than being a handicapped person and accomplishing something on your own.
No, I'm not saying that women, LGBT people or people of color are handicapped. I'm trying to give an example of what it means to be able to take care of yourself and your own business and your own community's business and "respect the dignity of every human being".
That about as relative a morality as "relative moralities" can get.
There are no rules about discussion. Discuss all you want. I was just telling you how it makes me feel. Last I heard, expressing one's feelings was allowed by the rules of this blog. If not, shoot me.
I'm done here. I probably shouldn't have entered the conversation in this weary state of mind. I know better. I've learned not to get into a tussle with a skunk. It just pisses them off and you get to smell badly for weeks. And, this particular conversation is a skunk at an LGBT garden party if there ever was one.
Thanks for posting this conversation, Mimi. I hope the discussion is helpful to you and to others who need to discuss the ethics of the situation. I apologize if I set a negative tone in any way. As I said, I'm just weary of this battle which seems to pop up at least several times a year in some form in the LGBT community. I'll keep my mouth shut now. I'll come back and visit in a few days. All the best to you and yours.
MP, you said, "So to let people suffer even when you can stop it is okay, Margaret?"
ReplyDeleteI can't stop the suffering. Only the "sniper" can.
You know, all Jesus had to do was call in all the angels, smack Pilate a good one and frighten the people to death and force the sin out of 'em... but he didn't.
And, yes, I think I understand what Elizabeth is saying. Working on the Rez, I would never presume to think I know "what the Indians need." --it's gotta come from the people. Just sayin'.
No, he didn't, Margaret. And look what happened. Absolutely nothing changed. In fact the world got more violent the more Christians there were.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm going to do major harm to another, I'm going to have to be pretty damned sure about what I'm doing and have thought through to the possible consequences, plus I'd have to be close to certain that my action will have the wished for result. I don't think outing a gay-bashing hypocrite could pass those tests.
ReplyDeleteMP, Jesus made no mistake. If he had done the things Margaret mentioned to save himself, I would not be his follower today. It's not true that nothing changed, because I've changed and I know others have changed because Jesus did not use his Godly power to vanquish his enemies. What was it that empowered his disciples to spread his message in the face of persecution after Jesus' bodily presence was no longer present with them? There is great power in powerlessness.
There is a novel from the 1950s called Advise and Consent in which a young and well-respected senator was "outed" (although that term wasn't actually used). The person who did the "outing" sincerely believed that he was acting for the greater good (the outed senator was blocking a political appointment that the "outer" fervently supported). In the end, the outed senator committed suicide, and the political appointee was rejected. So, the only people who ended up benefiting were those who opposed the appointment.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, there are some who would argue that the greater good is served by outing closeted bishops and priests so that they can be weeded out. That's not what MP has in mind, but it's an example of how outing someone for the greater good can backfire.
I'm also curious whether anyone can cite an example where outing one person has benefited others.
En passant et sans vouloir faire dérailler la conversation, in response to MP's earlier analogy, while it's easy to suppose that the world would have been a better place if Hitler had died as a child (or better yet, had never been conceived in the first place), we don't know that for a fact.It's possible that someone else just as bad, or even worse, would have come along. That's why God is God, and we aren't.
Mimi said, "It's not true that nothing changed, because I've changed and I know others have changed because Jesus did not use his Godly power to vanquish his enemies. What was it that empowered his disciples to spread his message in the face of persecution after Jesus' bodily presence was no longer present with them?"
ReplyDeleteYes.
And, it was radical welcoming love --even love for one's enemies, that empowered the disciples.
And, yes MP --Christians have got it wrong --real wrong, in every generation. But, many got it right too. It is that hope that keeps me going.
When people stay in the closet they are harming others.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think people who stay in the closet and actively work to harm their own kind are indeed fair game for outing.
ReplyDeleteAs is often true, Elizabeth has made me uncomfortable and that is a very good thing. I can slip easily into rescuer mode, and Elizabeth is right that that's presumptuous. Our response to gay bashing does not need to change when we think or even know that the sniper is gay. Gay bashing is simply wrong and we condemn it. The assertion that staying in the closet always harms others is far too sweeping. Staying in the closet may, and actually has, been a reasonable decision for some folks that I know. Harm, of course, is something we cause without knowing it. We're workers harmed in producing the iPad on which I am typing? Do I harm others, as a friend once told me, when I use a drive up window at the bank? Beyond those fairly simple examples are the ethical dilemmas which we face when two competing values are in play. Does telling the truth always trump loyalty to one's friends? If ethics were simple, we wouldn't need ethics courses in theological schools and Harvard's Michael Sandel wouldn't attract hundreds of students to his class on justice.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I'm concerned, a toxic hypocrite is a toxic hypocrite, and if he's outed by JoeMyGod or the NYTimes then a service is done for everyone.
ReplyDeleteIt was the Miami New Times that employs both straight and gay reporters that brought down George Rekers by catching him at the airport with his rent boy as he returned from a holiday in Spain. Rekers was a star "expert" for the homophobes. That was a big catch that arguably changed the direction and momentum of a lot of court cases.
If the straight folk want to slay an ogre for us, then it's fine with me. Instead of feeling obliged, I think we should feel encouraged to go out and slay more of them on our own. And since our straight friends frequently take a beating for taking our side (eg, our outspokenly gay friendly landlady is no longer welcome in her church), I see no cause to begrudge them some hypocrite's head on a pike.
Thank you all for your comments. I'm pleased that so many of you took the trouble to weigh in with opinions, especially you, my LGTB sisters and brothers, because you, above all, need to be part of this conversation. A diversity of opinions have been expressed here, and I'm grateful for them all. Though some of you may be weary of the discussion on outing, I am not. In fact, I've hardly discussed the matter at all. Although my question generated a bit of heat, I'm not sorry for my post, because I learned a lot from your responses, and I've been forced to think, which is no bad thing.
ReplyDeletePaul Powers, thanks for the reminder of Advise and Consent, which I read back in the day. The law of unintended consequences is always in the back of my mind when I have to make difficult decisions.