Gay Forum

Let's take Poland, for example, Poland is ruled by Jarosław Kaczyński, a 72-year-old old man who formally has no function in the Polish government except being the chairman of the PiS party (this is the abbreviation of this party ;-)), i.e. Law and Justice, which together with its coalition partners has the majority government in the Polish Sejm, i.e. our Polish parliament.

Jarosław Kaczyński, unlike his tragically deceased twin brother Lech Kaczyński, the president of Poland in 2005-2010, has never married and is the so-called an old bachelor, some of his companions are cats, which he has had several over the years, which is why some people call him Gargamel, Gargamel is such a bad sorcerer character from a smurf cartoon as if someone did not know.

Jarosław Kaczyński is very conservative, but there are rumors about him that he is a closeted homosexual (closeted gay)

Those who do not like him are looking for the mythical tapes of Kaczynski, these tapes were to be recorded by the Polish Security Service (Polish communist secret police), something like the East German Stasi they were supposed to record, how Kaczynski sucks another guy's cock and how the other one sucks Kaczynski and fucks him in the ass.

If these videos came out, Kaczyński would lose his electoral base among our Polish redneck from our country said and small towns :-)

Although Polish gay activists were against such action that one should not use someone's sexual orientation as a political weapon, it is despicable, even if Kaczyński himself gives little reason to feel sympathy for him.

I've never held with outing people. No matter who they are.

It's their choice and nobody should feel comfortable taking that choice away from someone else.

PopTart wrote:I've never held with outing people. No matter who they are.

It's their choice and nobody should feel comfortable taking that choice away from someone else.

Forgive me due language barrier, so you not out closeted gay politician, or you would?

I would not out a closeted gay politician.

Or a closeted gay clown, or closeted gay barrister or any other closeted gay person.

If it's not okay to out someone, what difference does their profession make? Or their public life?

PopTart wrote:I would not out a closeted gay politician.

Or a closeted gay clown, or closeted gay barrister or any other closeted gay person.

If it's not okay to out someone, what difference does their profession make? Or their public life?

But if they behave like as jerks while in public?

At least some Polish gay activists say it's not right to out someone even if they are jeks.

PopTart wrote:I've never held with outing people. No matter who they are.

It's their choice and nobody should feel comfortable taking that choice away from someone else.

That’s fine. I’ll gladly do the outing myself.

Gay-paul wrote:

PopTart wrote:I would not out a closeted gay politician.

Or a closeted gay clown, or closeted gay barrister or any other closeted gay person.

If it's not okay to out someone, what difference does their profession make? Or their public life?

But if they behave like as jerks while in public?

At least some Polish gay activists say it's not right to out someone even if they are jeks.

Problem is, once you start picking and choosing, who you apply your principles towards and who you don't, you've demonstrated that your principles don't really mean that much.

Let's consider the same principle in a different direction.

Perhaps a medical professional, who knows you have HIV, for whatever reason, believes that you are a risk to other people, or plain doesn't like you, decides that, you don't have the right to keep that information to yourself and tells the world you have HIV. Is that acceptable? They have taken that decision away from you and they might believe they have done so, for justifiable reasons.

What about your right to privacy? Who are you hurting? What business is it of anyone else?

Those people who say, I'd out him because he is a Conservative politician and I hate conservative politicians. What they are really saying is, I respect other peoples rights, unless I don't like them, don't agree with them or my policitical alignment is different, in which case, I discard their rights.

Maybe that all seems well and good when your doing it. And the person whose rights are being ignored is someone elses. But by that same logic, you may find others using the same reasoning to justify some shitty behaviour, that you or I, might be subject too.

Very slippery slope. One I don't want to see soceity go down, because we have alot to lose in those sorts of situations.

rogonandi wrote:

PopTart wrote:I've never held with outing people. No matter who they are.

It's their choice and nobody should feel comfortable taking that choice away from someone else.

That’s fine. I’ll gladly do the outing myself.

I'm sad that you feel that way Daniel.

I guess it comes down to this.

If you believe in other peoples rights, but you place conditions on those rights, then you don't get to demand unconditional rights from others, without being a hypocrite.

PopTart wrote:

rogonandi wrote:

PopTart wrote:I've never held with outing people. No matter who they are.

It's their choice and nobody should feel comfortable taking that choice away from someone else.

That’s fine. I’ll gladly do the outing myself.

I'm sad that you feel that way Daniel.

Don’t worry, I’m rarely that spiteful.

rogonandi wrote:

PopTart wrote:

rogonandi wrote:

PopTart wrote:I've never held with outing people. No matter who they are.

It's their choice and nobody should feel comfortable taking that choice away from someone else.

That’s fine. I’ll gladly do the outing myself.

I'm sad that you feel that way Daniel.

Don’t worry, I’m rarely that spiteful.

I'm genuinely relieved to hear it. I was having nightmares of all the payback you might be getting against those horrible hotel guests!

Even if some do deserve it.

I generally consider outing to be a violent act and as such, wouldn't want to do it. However, that said, when someone in a position of power uses that power against a minority group like him/her/their self, then I can understand why the media may make a decision to provide proof of the hypocrisy to the public at large. The only time I can consider it is when the benefit to society at large outbalances the current harm that individual is inflicting. Not sure if the attempt at a logic comes through, but such outing isn't meant as spite or vengeance. Haven't given this enough thought, let alone been in a situation, thus can't say I feel the concept is fully formed in my mind.

The one thing though would be the need for strong proof -- like the surveillance tape though that raises other questions as well. Just being a bachelor with a love for cats isn't anything like proof.